(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Long Sault Rapids, St. Lawrence River : an enquiry into the constitutional and other aspects of the project to develop power therefrom"

I! il I III " ' 'miMH. I 






reoce River 



3rthur V. White 



(Rmmll Uttivmitg pilrt^t:g 



THE GIFT OF 



'^arr^ojdjx %lT!rr\rfr}JJnifi^sy\.x^^ 



A.z787on ■ 2.5^x7, 



3 

97'4 



Cornell University Library 
HD 1696.C2A55 



Long Sault Rapids St. Lawrence River :a 




3 1924 011 338 286 




Cornell University 
Library 



The original of this book is in 
the Cornell University Library. 

There are no known copyright restrictions in 
the United States on the use of the text. 



http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924011338286 



Commission of Conservation 



Constituted under "The Conservation Act," 8-9 Edward VII., Chap. S7, 
1909., and amending Acta— 9-10 Edward VIL, chr . 42, 1910; and 3-4 
Geo. V, chap. 12, 1913. 



Chairman : 

HOU. CUPPOHD SlFTON 

Members : 

Hon. Aubin E. Arsbnattmt, Summerside, P.B.I. 

Dk. Howard Mtjekay, Dalhousie Univereity, Halifax, N.S. 

Mb. Frank Davison, Bridgewater, N.S. 

Dr. Cecil C. Jones, Chanoallor, University of New Bruiuiwigk, Fred- 

ericton, N.B. 
Mr. William B. Snowball, Chatham, N.B. 
Hon. Henri S. Beland, M.D., M.P., St. Joseph-de-Beauce, Que. 
MoNSEiGNBUR Charles P. Choqubttb, St. HyactDthe, Que., Superior, 

Seminary of St. Hyacinthe and Member of Fatuity, Laval University 
Mb. Edward Gohibk, St. Laurent, Que. 
Dr. Jambs W. Robertson, C.M.G., Chairman, Royal Commission on 

Industrial Training and Teohnioal Education, Ottawa, Ont. 
Sir Sandford Flbminq, K.C.M.G., Ottawa, Ont., Chaneellor, Queea'i 

University 
Hon. Senator William Cameron Edwards, Ottawa, Ont. 
Sib Edmund B. Oslbb, M.P., Governor, Univergity of Toronto, Toronto, 

Ont. 
Mr. Charles A. McCool, Ottawa, Ont. 

Mr. John F. Mackat, Business Manager, "The Globe," Toronto, Ont. 
Dr. BernhaBd E. Fbrnow, Dean, Faculty of Forestry, University of 

Toronto, Toronto, Ont. 
Dr. George Brtcb, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Man. 
Dr. William J. Rutherford, Member of Faculty, University of Saskat- 
chewan, Saskatoon, Sask. 
Dr. Henry M. Tort, President, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alta. 
Mr. John Hendrt, Vancouver, B.C. 

Members, ex-officio : 

Hon. Martin Burrbll, Minister of Agricultiu*, Ottawa 
Hon. William J. Roche, Minister of the Interior, Ottawa 
Hon. Louis Codbrre, Minister of Mines, Ottawa 

Hon. John A. Mathieson, K.C., President, Premier and Attorney- 
General, Prince Edward Island 
Hon. Orlando T. Daniels, Attorney-General, Nova Scotia 
Hon. James K. Flbmming, Premier and Suffveyor-General, New Bruni- 

wiok 
Hon. Jules Allard, Minister of Lands and Forests, Que. 
Hon. William Hearst, Minister of Lands, Forests and Mines, Ontario 
Hon. James H. Howdbn, Provincial Secretary, Manitoba 
Hon. Jambs A. Caldbr, Minister of Education, Provincial Treasurer 

and Minister of Railways, Saskatchewan 
Hon. Arthur L. Sifton, Premier, Minister of Education, and Provincial 

Treasurer, Alberta 
Hon. William R. Rosa, Minister of Lands, British Columbia 

Assistant to Chairman and Deputy Head : 
Mr. James White 



Commission of Conservation 

CANADA 

C^OnniTTEE ON WATERS AND VATER-POWERS 



LONG 5AULT RAPID5, 
5T. LAWRENCE RIVER 

An Enquiry into tlie Constitutional and 

other Aspects of the Project to 

Develop Power Therefrom 

By 

ARTHUR V. WHITE, H.E. 




Pbinted by the MORTIMER CO., Limited 

OTTAWA 

1913 



S 



f\.z.n8To7 

Committee on Waters 
and Water-Powers 



Chairman : 


Hon. Henbi S. Bjslakd 


Slembers: 


Hon. Jttlhs Allabd 


Hon. Jambs K. Flemming 


Hon. William H. Heabst 


Mb. Chablbs A. McCool 


Hon. William R. Ross 



Ottawa, July 24, 1913 
Sir: 

I have the honour to transmit herewith a report on the Long 
Sault rapids, St. Lawrence river, containing an enquiry into the con- 
stitutionality of the Long Sault Development Co.'b charter, and into 
the effect on navigation and the general advantages or otherwise, 
accruing to the people of Canada, from the project to develop electric 
power from the said rapids. 

Your obedient servant 

JAMES WHITE 

AssistarU to Chairman 
Hon. Clifford Sifton, 

Chairman, 
Commission of Conservation. 



To Field-Marshal His Royal Highness Prince Arthitr William 
Patrick Albert, Dxjke of Connaught and of Strathearn, 
K.G., K.T., K.P., &c., &c., Governor General op Canada. 

May it Please Your Royal Highness : 

The undersigned has the honour to lay before Your Royal Highnea 
a report on the Long Sault Rapids, St. Lawrence River. 

Respectfully submitted 

CLIFFORD SIFTON 

Chairman 
Ottawa, July 25th, 1913. 



CONTENTS 

PAGE 

Argument Against Proposed Long Sault Power Project 1 

Appendices : 

I. Act of Incorporation of Long Sault Development 

Company 39 

II. Unconstitutionality of Long Sault Development 

Company's Charter 45 

By Thos. Carmody, A.G., state of N.Y. 

III. (a) Act of Repeal of Act of Incorporation 65 

(6) Act Providing for Claims under Act of Repeal. 67 

IV. Malby Bill, H.R., 14531 68 

V. Memo, in Opposition to Bill, H.R., 14531 70 

By C. E. Littlefield. 
VI. Memo, on the Rights and Powers of the Long Sault 

Development Company 89 

VII. References to Reports of the International Water- 
ways Commission 104 

VIII. Proposed Works of the St. Lawrence Power Co. 

and the Long Sault Development Company 105 

By J. W. Rickey. 
IX. (a) Bill to Incorporate St. Lawrence Power Trans- 
mission Company, as introduced in the House of 

Commons 113 

(6) Act of Incorporation of St. Lawrence Power 
Transmission Company, as passed by the House 
of Commons 117 

X. Act of Incorporation of the St. Lawrence Power 

Company 121 

XL (a) First Report of Canadian Government Engineers 127 
(6) Second Report of Canadian Government En- 
gineers 131 

XII. St. Lawrence River Power Company's Certificate 

of Incorporation 133 

XIII. (a) St. Lawrence Transmission Company's Certifi- 
cate of Incorporation 137 

(6) St. Lawrence Transmission Company's Certifi- 
cate Giving Consent of Stockholders to increase 
the Number of Directors 139 



PAGE 

XIV. Massena Electric Light and Power Company'B 

Certificate of Incorporation 140 

XV. New York and Ontario Power Company's Certifi- 
cate of Incorporation 142 

XVI. Humphreys Bill, H.R., 22207. 144 

XVII. (a)Burton Bill, S. 6795 149 

(6)Amendment to Bill S. 6795 152 

XVIII. (a) Young Bill, H.R., 32219 156 

(6)Report on Bill H.R., 32219 159 

XIX. (a) Oliver Bill, S. 10558 170 

(6)Report on Bill S. 10558 173 

XX. Hearings on Bill S. 10558 183 

XXI. Malby BUI, H.R. 22950 227 

XXII. General Dam Laws, Enacted by U.S. Congress 230 

XXIII. U.S. Federal Act to Regulate Construction of 
Bridges over Navigable Waters 237 

XXIV. Conditions on the St. Lawrence River between 
Prescott and Cornwall 240 

From " The Leader," Morrisburg. 

XXV. Ice Conditions on the St. Lawrence 252 

By Prof. H. T. Barnes. 
XXVI. Ice Jams between Morrisburg and Cornwall .... 260 

By J. W. Rickey. 
XXVII. Effect in Canadian Waters of a Power-house Built 

in the Long Sault Channel 266 

By J. W Rickey. 
XXVIII. Reasons for Opposing the Project to Dam the 

Long Sault Channel 273 

By J. Wesley Allison. 

XXIX. Protest of the Montreal Board of Trade 278 

XXX. Proceedings before the International Waterways 

Commission, Feb. 8-9, 1910 280 

Index 379 




ILLUSTRATIONS 

PAGE 

Near View or Portion of Long Sault Rapids Frontispiece 

Large Passenger Steamer Shooting the Long Sault Rapids. 6 
Long Sault Rapids above the Proposed Spillway of Long 

Sault Development Compant 11 

Inter-Relationships of Corporations Connected with Power 

Developments on the St. Lawrence River — Diagram 13 

Portion of Long Sault Rapids 15 

St. Lawrence River Intake of the St. Lawrence River Power 

Company's Canal, Massena, N.Y 15 

St. Lawrence River Power Company's Old Plant, Massena, 

N.Y 17 

Old and New Power Houses of St. Lawrence River Power 

Co. (Aluminium Co.), Massena, N.Y 17 

Old Dam and Roadway from Mainland to Ogden Island, 

Waddington, N.Y 22 

Long Sault Rapids and Vicinity — Map 27 

Steamer in a Turbulent Portion of Long Sault Rapids 29 
Massena Power Canal to Convey Water prom St. Lawrence 

River to the St. Lawrence R. Power Company's Plant 

AT Massena, N.Y 30 

Position of Long Sault Water Power, with Reference to 

Ontario, Quebec, and United States — Map 32 

Horse-Power Percent Time Curve of St. Lawrence River at 

its Head for Forty-Eight Years Period : 1860-1907, Inclus- 
ive — Diagram 34 

Looking Up-stream near Entrance to Massena Canal, 

Showing South Sault Blocked with Ice, 1911 38 

Looking Down South Sault near Canal Intake Showing 

Channel Blocked with Ice 112 

Looking Down Stream from Foot of Farran Point Canal; 

Showing North Channel Blocked with Ice 240 

Looking Up-stream, Foot of Farran Point Canal, Showing 

North Channel Blocked with Ice 241 

Ice Piled up on Guard Pier at Lachine Due to Spring Shove 244 

Ice Jam at Polly Gut, Cornwall Island 247 

ICB Piled Along the Shore after a Winter Ice Shove 250 



Maximum Extent of Ice on Riveh St. Lawrence— Map 252 

An Ice Pack in the St. Lawrence Partly Cut Away by an 
Icebreaker. Frazil from Below Rises to Fill the 
Channel 254 

Penstock FillED with Frazil Ice Accumulated in a Few 
Hours 256 

Anchor Ice Forming an Ice Bridge which, together with 
the Frazil, Eventually Dammed the Channel 259 

Artificial Channel in Head Race op a Former Development. 
Man Engaged in Scooping out the Frazil Ice Carried in 
BY the Current 261 

Characteristics of Sheet, Frazil and Anchor Ice — Diagram.. 263 




Long Sault Rapids, St. Lawrence 

River 



THE question whether private corporations and individuals shall, 
or shall not, be permitted to construct works for the development 
of power in the St. Lawrence river, is one of vast importahce to 
the people of Canada. The present is deemed an opportune time 
to review the facts. The great possibilities of injury to the interests 
of Canada; the enormous potential values of the franchises; the 
possibility that, within the lifetime of many men now living, electrical 
heating will, in Canada, supersede in part the burning of anthracite eoal; 
the certainty that, within a few years, it will be possible to economically 
transmit electrical energy to much greater distances than at present, 
thus bringiag southern Ontario and western Quebec, and the cities of 
New York, Jersey City, Newark, Boston, New Haven, etc., within 
economic radius of the rapids of the St. Lawrence: these, and many 
other considerations demonstrate that to conserve her great interests, 
Canada should adopt a well-considered and cautious policy. 

In this connection the activities of the Long Sault Development 
Company which, during the last few years, has been seeking to acquire 
a franchise for the development of the Long Sault rapids in the St. 
Lawrence, are of interest. 

In order to understand the true import of the Bills on behalf of the 
Long Sault Development Company presented to the United States 
Congress and to the Parliament of Canada it is necessary to make a 
brief study of the various other interests which are combined and 
associated with that Company. In the following report the principal 
facts essential to such a study are set forth. 



Author's Note. — In preparing this report it was concluded best to assist the 
reader to gain a general yet precise understanding of the subject in hand by setting 
it forth in brief outline, and to include full copies of the various documents asAppen- 
diees. To these, reference may be made by any one desiring a more comprehensive 
knowledge of the many and diverse factors involved in the Long Sault power project. 
The time available for the preparation of this report was limited, and in consequence 
of this fact, certain memoranda herein given, as for example the effects which the 
damming of the St. Lawrence river, at the Long Sault rapids, will have upon navi- 
gation, must be considered more as suggestive, and as by no means a full considera- 
tion of such phases of tbe subject. — A. V. W. 



2 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

Long Sault Development Company 

The Long Sault Development Company owes its origin to an Act* 
of the Legislature of the State of New York, Chapter 355, Laws of 1907, 
which became law on May 23rd, 1907, This Act is intituled : 

" An Act to incorporate the Long Sault Development Company, 
and to authorize said Company to construct and maintain dams, 
canals, power houses and locks at or near Long Sault island, for 
the purpose of improving the navigation of the St. Lawrence river 
and developing power from the waters thereof, and to construct and 
maintain a bridge, and carry on the manufacture of commodities. " 

The Company, as stated in the Act, is incorporated: 

"For the purpose of erecting, constructing, maintaining, 
operating and using, in connection with the St. Lawrence river, 
a dam or dams, a canal or canals, a reservoir or reservoirs, and a 
power house or power houses and works appurtenant thereto, 
at or near Long Sault island, in the county of Saint Lawrence, and 
of erecting and constructing a lock or locks, and works appurtenant 
thereto, at or near the same place, and for the development of electric 
power and energy, and the permanent improvement of navigation 
on the Saint Lawrence river, at and above and below said place; 
and also of constructing and maintaining a bridge upon or in con- 
nection with said works, and of carrying on the manufacture of 
commodities with the said power. " 

Section 3 of the Act provides that : 

"Said corporation shall have the right to erect, construct, 
maintain, operate and use all such dam or dams, canal or canals, 
reservoir or reservoirs, gates, sluices, trunks, pipes, bulkheads, 
piers, flumes, abutments and other works appurtenant thereto, 
as may be proper or useful for the purpose of the development of 
water-power, and of electrical power and energy therefrom, at such 
point or points upon or adjacent To the south shore of the St. 
Lawrence river, near Long Sault island or Barnhart island, and 
upon the said islands, or either of them, and between said islands, 
and between said islands or either of them and the shores of the said 
river and Sheek island (but not across the international boundary 
line unless consented to by the Dominion of Canada,) as may be se- 
lected by said corporation, and also in and upon so much of the said 
river and the bed thereof as lies to the south of the international 
boundary line, at or near Long Sault island or Barnhart island, 
either independently or in connection with like works now erected, 
in so much of said river and the bed thereof as lies to the north or 
Canadian side of said international boundary line, and upon and ad- 
jacent to the northerly shore of said river; and to erect, construct. 



* See Appendix I, page 39. 



LONG SAXJLT POWER PROJECT 3 

maintain, operate and use a power house or power houses, and con- 
ductors, cables, wires, insulators and other appliances in connection 
with the said works for the development of electrical power and 
energy; and also to take and use the waters of said river at and 
above the points of location of said works heretofore authorized, 
and to construct and maintain upon, over and in connection with 
said dam or dams and other works, a bridge or bridges across or 
partly across the Saint Lawrence river, with the approaches 
thereto, for the use of foot passengers, animals and vehicles, and to 
charge reasonable rates of toll for passages thereon; the said 
rights being granted upon the express condition that said corpora- 
tion shall make just compensation to all persons injured by the 
exercise of the rights and privileges heretofore granted, and that 
said corporation shall also erect and construct a lock or locks as 
may be required by the United States of America, and shall provide 
electrical power and energy for the maintenance, operating and use 
of said lock or locks, free of charge, and shall in all other respects 
perform, fulfil and abide by all and singular the conditions and pro- 
visions of this Act, and also of any Act of the Congress of the United 
States relating thereto, and also upon condition that the rights 
thereby granted shall never be so used as to impair or obstruct the 
navigation of the St. Lawrence river, but, on the contrary, that 
such navigation shall be preserved in as good condition as, if not 
better than, the same is at present, regard being always had to the 
amount of the natural flow of water in said river as affecting its 
navigability from time to time. " 

And again, under Section 4, the Act provides that r 

" After the Congress of the United States shall authorize the 
construction of dams, locks and canals hereby authorized and after 
the payment by said corporation into the treasury of the state of the 
fixed sum of ten thousand dollars the commissioners of the land 
office shall, upon application of said corporation, grant unto it the 
title and interest of the people of the state in and to lands under 
the waters of the St. Lawrence river to be covered or occupied by 
said works and locks and power houses, provided, however, that 
any of the lands of the state which may be so conveyed to said 
corporation shall be forfeited and title thereto shall revert to the 
state imless the same are actually used by said corporation and 
covered by its dams, canals, reservoirs, gates, sluices, trunks, 
pipes, bulkheads, piers, flumes, abutments or other works apper- 
taining thereto, or are necessary to the enjoyment for said purposes 
of any lands so used or covered, within fifteen years from the con- 
veyance thereof by the commissioners of the liand office to said 
corporation under authority of this Act, and in consideration of 
the conveyance so made under the authority of this Act, as well 
as for the rights and privileges hereby granted, the said corporation 
in addition to the payment aforesaid shall pay into the treasury 
of the state for the year nineteen hundred and ten, the fixed sum of 
fifteen thousand dollars, and for the year nineteen and eleven the 
fixed sum of twenty thousand dollars. For each year after nineteen 
hundred and eleven the said corporation shall pay at the following 



4 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

rates upon the average amount of electrical horse-power generated 
during such year under the authority of this Act, that is to say: 
upon all amounts up to twenty-five thousand horse-power, at the 
rate of seventy-five cents per horse-power." 

The above-mentioned provisions of the Act are the most important 
so far as the present discussion is concerned. 

Features of Com. Unlike its allied Company, in Canada,— the St. 
pany's Charter Lawrence Power Company — ^the charter of the Long 
Sault Development Company does not confer upon it powers of 
eminent domain. As yet, the latter has not commenced any con- 
struction works in the St. Lawrence river. It is endeavouring, 
however, to keep its charter alive and, in conformity with conditions 
in its Act, deposited with the Comptroller of the state of New York, 
on January 24th, 1911, the sum of $15,000, and again on January 20th, 
1912, the sum of $20,000. On January 27th, 1913, the Company 
tendered the sum of $25,000 on account of the year 1912, but, upon 
the advice of the Attorney General, this was refused. The Company 
then applied for a mandamus to compel acceptance of the January 
tender, thus endeavouring to secure a judicial determination of the 
constitutionality of the grant. As the application in the first instance 
was denied, the Company appealed, but the intermediate court of 
appeal has not yet (July 15th, 1913), rendered its decision. 

Upon receiving its charter from the state of New York, the Com- 
pany prepared to exercise its rights thereunder and has already ex- 
pended about one and three-quarter million dollars in the purchase 
of properties and in preparations for developing water-power in the 
St. Lawrence river. It is not known, however, what proportion, if 
any, of this large sum has been expended in connection with develop- 
m^it works of companies with which the Company is affiliated. 

UWCONSTITUTIONALITT OF THE LoNG SaULT DEVELOPMENT CoMPANT'S 

New Yoke State Charter 

The grant made to the Long Sault Development Company by 
Chapter 355, Laws of the State of New York, 1907, of privileges for the 
use of waters and of the title to the bed of the St. Lawrence river under 
the Long Sault rapids, has been declared \mconstitutional by the state 
of New York. 

Decker's In May, 1911, George P. Decker, Chid[ Attorney and 

Opinion* Coimsel for the Forest, Fish, and Game Commission of 



* See Deeker, George P., Opimon, in Re ConstitutionaHty of the Grant to the 
iong Scndt Development Company of Privilegeg, by Chapter 355, Lares of 1907, for Oie 
Wse of Waters and of TiAe to the Bed of the St. Lawrenee Biver under the Long SauU. 
Albany, N.Y., May, 1911. 18pp. S°. 



LONG SAULT POWER PROJECT 5 

the state of New York ably challenged the constitutionality of the 
grant on two grounds: 

First, that it involves the alienation of lands within the New 
York State Forest Preserve, and second, that contrary to the State 
Constitution, it purports to grant an exclusive franchise. 

Cannody's Pursuant to a resolution by Senator Burd,* Thomas 

Opinion Carmody, Attorney General of the state of New York on 

December 30, 1912, rendered his Opinion relative to the constita- 
tionality of the charter of the Long Sault Development Company.t 
He declared it to be unconstitutional on the following groimds: 

First, It contravenes section 18 of article III of the State 
Constitution, which provides that the Legislature shall not pass 
a private or local bill granting to any private corporation, associa- 
tion or individual any exclusive privilege, as contemplated by 
section 18 of article III of the Constitution. 

Second, It violates section 7 of article VII of the State Con- 
stitution, which provides that the lands of the State now owned or 
hereafter acquired, constituting the Forest Preserve, as now fixed 
by law, shall be forever kept as wild forest lands, and shall not be 
leased, sold or exchanged, or taken by any corporation, public or 
private. The bed of the St. Lawrence river, which, by the act in 
question, is directed to be conveyed to the Long Sault Develop- 
ment Company, is owned by the State and was so owned|at the 
time the provision of the Constitution was adopted, and was 
included within the Forest Preserve, as defined by section 100 of 
chapter 332 of the Laws of 1893, describing the lands included 
within the State Forest Preserve. 

Third, The act in question is a private bill and embraces more 
than one subject, and is, therefore, in violation of article III, section 
16 of the State Constitution, which provides that no private or 
local bill which may be passed by the legislature shall embrace 
more than one subject, and that shall be expressed in its title. 

Fourth, The act is invalid as being in excess of the powers of 
the Legislature, in that it provides for the alienation by the State 
to the Long Sault Development Company of title to the lands in 
the bed of the St. Lawrence river. The title of the State in these 
lands is a sovereign right, rather than a proprietary title. It is 
inconsistent with that right, which must be exercised for the 



* For the Resolution of Senator Burd, see Legislative Record of the state of 
New York, 1912, p. 265. See also page 45 of this report. 

t For the Opinion of Mr. Carmody, see Appendixf II, page 50. 



6 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

benefit of the whole people, that the title to the bed of a navigable 
stream should be granted in fee to a private corporation. 

Governor Sulzer in referring to Mr. Carmody's report said : 
"The Attorney-General, the State Conservation Commission and 
myself are convinced that the Act is void and unconstitutional and that 
the appropriate action to be taken by legislation at this time is to repeal 
the said Act. 

" Not only is said act violative of the provision of our State Con- 
stitution, but its provisions are in other respects improvident, unwise 
and indefensible, both from an industrial and economic point of view." 

Long Sault On May 8th, 1913, a Bill * to repeal the Act of 

Act Repealed Incorporation of the Long Sault Development Company 
was signed by Governor Sulzer. It also appropriated $36,320 for 
the purpose of refimding to the Long Sault Development Company 
the monies paid into the State treasury. 

On the same date another Billf was signed. It empowers the 
State Board of Claims to adjudicate Upon any claims that may be 
preferred by the Long Sault Development Company. 

Long Sault Act and Navigation 

To the cursory reader it would appear that one of the principal 
purposes of the Charter held by the Long Sault Development Company 
purports to be the improvement of navigation. The preamble of the 
Act, for example, states that it is: 

"For the purpose of improving the navigation of the St. 
Lawrence river. " 

And, again, for: 

"the permanent improvement of navigation of the St. Lawrence 
river at and above and below said place. " 

The Charter, however, does not stipulate or impose upon the 
Company any specific requirements for the improvement of navigation. 
It only recites that : 

"The navigation of the St. Lawrence river shall be 

preserved in as good condition as, if not better than, the same is at 
present, regard being always had to the amount of the natural flow 
of water in said river as affecting its navigability from time to 
time. " 



*Laws of the state of New York, 1913, chap. 452. See Appendix III fal 
page 65. ^ ■'' 

tLaws of the state of New York, 1913, chap. 453. See Appendix III (b^ 
page 67. ■'' 




X 



LONG SAULT POWER PROJECT 7 

Federal -^ *^® Federal Government of the United States has 

Jurisdiction paramount jurisdiction over navigable waters, the Act of 
aramount ^^^ -^^^ York State legislature, Chapter 355, Laws of 
1907, requires that the Company shall obtain authority from the Con- 
gress of the United States to construct the dams, locks and canals re- 
ferred to in the Act, and, then, the Act further provides, that, after re- 
ceiving proper authority from Congress, the Company may have, on 
application therefor, a formal grant of title to the portion of the bed of 
the river that is to be covered by the structures, and the Commissioners 
of the Land Office are commanded to make such conveyance. Not only 
the charter, but the privileges granted, are unlimited as to time. 

The Long Sault Development Company, when it shall have com- 
plied with the requirements of the Federal law, and upon the terms 
prescribed by the statute, will — ^to use the statement made by the Com- 
pany before the Committee on Rivers and Harbours :* 

"become vested with (a) the title to that part of the bed of the St. 
Lawrence river which it is necessary to use in the construction of 
the works contemplated by the Act, and (b) the right to construct 
and maintain such works and to enjoy to the exclusion of all others 
the right to divert and use for purposes of operating its works, the 
surplus waters of the St. Lawrence river; subject, however, to 
such regulation either in respect of the character of the works or 
the use of the water of the river as the Federal Government (and 
to some extent, pointed out below, the State Government) may 
from time to time impose in order to maintain unimpaired the 
navigability of the river. " 

Primarv ^* ^^ therefore be perceived, that the primary object 

Object of the Bills that have been introduced, and those that 

° are at present before the Congress of the United States, 

is to secure the Federal authority specified in the Act which the Long 
Sault Development Company obtained from the state of New York. 
Once this authority has been obtained, the Company may have, on ap- 
plication therefor, a formal grant of title to the portion of the river-bed 
that is to be covered by its structures, canals, etc. Such a grant, apart 
from international considerations, would practically give the Company 
domination of the situation. 



Long Sault Bills Befoeb Last Congress 

In 1907, a Bill (H. R. 25707) to authorize the construction of dams, 
canals, power stations and locks for the improvement of navigation 
and development of water-power in St. Lawrence county, New York, 



* See Appendix VI, page 89. 



8 (COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

was introduced in the United States Congress, but was subsequently 
withdrawn.* 

Malbt Bill H. R. 14531 1 

On Dec. 14th, 1909, a Bill (H. R. 14531) was introduced in the 
House of Representatives by Hon. G. R. Malby to provide 

"For the construction of dams, locks, canals and other appur- 
tenant structures in the St. Lawrence river at and near Long 
Sault island, St. Lawrence county, New York. " 

This Bill was subsequently withdrawn. It provided that the works 
authorized should be 

"completed within fifteen years from the date of passage of this 
Act, or from the date of the consent qf the proper authorities of the 
United States of America and the Dominion of Canada to the 
construction of said works, or of the approval of plans and specifica- 
tions and location and accessory works thereof;" 

and it, further, provided that: 

"This Act shall not be construed as authorizing said Company, 
its successors or assigns, to construct the said dams, canals, locfe, 
and other works until such consent and approval shall be obtained. " 

Obviously, if unacceptable plans were filed with the "proper au- 
thorities of the United States of America and the Dominion of Canada " 
the life of the charter might be rendered perpetual. 

Young Bill H. R. 32219 % 

On Jan. 28th, 1911, Mr. Young of Michigan introduced a Bill 
(H. R. 32219) intituled: 

"A Bill to provide for the improvement of navigation in the 
St. Lawrence river and for the construction of dams, locks, canals, 
and other appurtenant structures therein at and near Long Sault, 
Barnhart and Sheek islands. " ' 



* See Appendix VII, page 104. 

t See Appendix IV, page 68, respecting this Bill. Consult the Memorandum in 
opposition to the Bill presented before the Committee on Rivers and Harbours of 
the United States House of Representatives, by C. E. Littlefield (see Appendix V), 
also Memorandum in favour of the Bill presented by the Long Sault Develop- 
ment Company, (a pamphlet of 20 pages). Also, consult Hearings on the 
Subject of H. R. 32219, 61st Congress, 3rd Session and H. R. 14531, 61st Con- 
gress, 2nd Session — ^relating to the importance of navigation of the St. Lawrence 
river at and near Long Sault island, St. Lawrence county, N.Y., including the con- 
struction of looks, dams, canals and other appurtenant structures; pp. 625 to 914, 
with map, Washington, 1911. 

J See Appendix XVIII, page 156. 



LONG SAULT POWER PROJECT 9 

This Bill in its essentials resembles Bill H. R. 14531 previously in- 
troduced by Mr. Malby. There is, however, one noticeable omission 
which is of importance to Canada. The requirement of the consent of 
Canada is deleted, and the only provision which appears to contem- 
plate action upon the part of the Dominion of Canada is that of section 
2 which provides: 

"That said Long Sault Development Company, its succes- 
sors and assigns, shall be subject to the provisions of the treaty 
between the United States and Great Britain relative to the bound- 
ary waters between the United States and Canada, proclaimed 
by the President of the United States on the 13th day of May, 
1910. " 

It will be observed that this provision does not provide that the 
operation of the Act be contingent upon the declared consent or approval of 
the Commission, but simply subjects the Act to "the provisions of 
the treaty." 

Now, Article VIII of the International Boundary Waters Treaty 
provides that: 

"The majority of the Commissioners shall have power to 
render a decision. In case the Commission is evenly divided upon 
any question or matter presented to it for decision, separate reports 
shall be made by the Commissioners on each side to their own 
Government. The High Contracting Parties shall thereupon en- 
deavour to agree upon an adjustment of the question or matter 
of difference, and if an agreement is reached between them, it shall 
be reduced to writing in the form of a protocol, and shall be com- 
municated to the Commissioners, who shall take such further 
proceedings as may be necessary to carry out such agreement. " 

An Important If t^ie application of the Long Sault Development Com- 
P°'°' pany were submitted to the InternationalJoint Commis- 

sion and if the Commissioners failed to agree and were "evenly divided," 
the matter would then pass to the direct consideration of the High 
Contracting Parties. If the High Contracting Parties failed to agree, 
then no decision could be reached, but the Long Sault Development 
Company would, nevertheless, have submitted its Act to the Commission. 
It is open to be argued, therefore, that, by thus subjecting its Act " to 
the provisions of the treaty," the Company would have complied with 
the requirements of Section 2 and its status would not be adversely 
affected by the failure either of the Commission or of the Higti Con- 
tracting Parties, to reach an agreement. It would have complied with 
its treaty obligations, and might contend that it could now proceed to 
carry out other terms of its charter, the operation of which terms had 
been held in abeyance pending the subjection of its Act "to the provi- 
sions of the treaty." 



10 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

The objects set forth in Bill, H. R. 25707; in the Malby Bill, H. R. 
14531 ; and in the Young Bill, H. R. 32219 have, from time to time, been 
the subject of consideration by the International Waterways Commis- 
sion. A pubUc hearing was held by the Canadian section at Montreal, 
November 6, 1907. Public hearings were held by the full Commission 
in Toronto, October 27, 1907, also on November 21, 1908; and at 
Buffalo, February 26, 1909 and January 8, 1910. A public hearing 
was held at Toronto on February 8 and 9, 1910.* At this hearing, the 
Commission of Conservation strongly protested against the proposal to 
grant the Company permission to dam the Long Sault. 

Dam in Sottth Satjlt Channel 

The statement of Congressman Malby before the sub-committee 
on Commerce of the Senate in the Hearings respecting Senate Bill; 
S. 10558t— (which is identical in text with Bill, H. R. 32219) is very 
significant : 

The Chairman : You concede that for the construction of 
these works the consent of the Canadian Government is necessary? 

Mr. Malby: Absolutely essential, sir. There will be no 
work done in the United States of America unless Canada consents. 
This is one job, Mr. Chairman, or it is nothing. 

But at the close of the Hearing, in answer to another question 
from Chairman Burton, of the sub-committee, Mr. Malby admitted that, 
in his judgment, the bill did authorize the construction of part of 
the work without the consent of Canada, as appears by the following: 

The Chairman: If you can do that, is it contemplated, 
without the consent of the Canadian Government, to put in that 
dam at the South Sault? 

_ Mr.Malbt: I thiak it is, if it can be regarded as a practicable 
engineering proposition. 

Thus it is seen that Mr. Malby conceded that the Company con- 
templated putting a dam in the South Sault channel without the consent 
of the Dominion Government, provided only that the proposed dam is 
possible as a "practical engiaeeriag proposition." 

Malbt Bill, H. R. 22950$ 
The facts, just recited, are especially pertinent because, on April 



* See Appendices XXX, page 280; YII, page 104; IV, page 68; andXVIII, 
page 156. 

t See Appendix XX, page 183. 
t See Appendix XXI, page 227. 




'A 
< 

CM 
% 

o 
o 

2; 

H 

o 

H 
> 

Q 
E-i 

& 

CO 

o 
?; 
o 

o 

< 

Ph 

o 
w 

cc 
O 

o 
« 

H 

K 

H 
> 
O 
FP 
<l 

o 

hH 

CM 
<J 
P^ 

Em 
►J 
P 
<< 
CC 

o 

o 



LONG SATJLT POWER PROJECT 11 

6th, 1912, a Bill* (H. R. 22950) was introduced in the House of Re- 
presentives by Mr. Malby, intituled: 

"A Bill to provide for the improvement of navigation in the 
St. Lawrence river, and for the construction of dams, locks, canals, 
and other appurtenant structures therein at and near Long Sault, 
Barnhart, and Sheek islands. " 

This Bill grants to the Long Sault Development Company the right 
to construct a dam or dams in so much of the St. Lawrence river as 
lies south of the international boundary line between the United States 
and the Dominion of Canada, near Long Sault, Barnhart, or Sheek 
islands. These dams may be constructed either independently or in 
connection with like works now erected, or to be erected, in that portion 
of the St. Lawrence river which lies north of the international boundary 
line. Provision is also made for the erection of a bridge or bridges 
and approaches thereto, and a lock or locks, a canal or canals, and other 
structures appurtenant thereto, provided that such dam or dams, lock 
or locks, canal or canals, and other structures appurtenant thereto, 
shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Act, entitled, " An Act 
to amend an Act entitled ' An Act to regulate the construction of dams 
across navigable waters,' approved June 23, 1910"; t and provided 
further, that the bridge or bridges thereto shall be subject to and in 
accordance with the provisions of an Act entitled, " An Act to regulate 
the construction of bridges over navigable waters,"J approved March 
23, 1906. 

The Bill provides for conformity to the terms of the International 
Boundary Waters Treaty, and, also, for conformity to the regulations 
of the Secretary of War and of the United States Chief of Engineers. It 
also provides for the periods within which the works authorized must 
be begun and completed. 

The works proposed to be constructed in the South Sault channel 
are to be commenced within one year and completed within six years 
from the date of approval by the proper authorities of plans and works. 



* This Bill (H. R. 22950, see Appendix XXI page, 227), in its essentials resembles 
the bill H. R. 32219, introduced in the House of Representatives on Jan. 29, 1911, by 
Mr. Toung, of Michigan. 

The Bill (H. R. 32219, 61st Congress, Third Session), was reported upon. House 
Calendar No. 369, Report No. 2032, 61st Congress, Third Session, by the Committee 
on Rivers and Harbours (see Appendix XVIII b). The same Bill was introduced 
in the United States Senate as S. 10558 by Mr. Oliver, on Jan. 30, 1911, and was 
reported upon by the Gonmuttee on Commerce, Feb. 20, 1911, in Report No. 1203, 
Calendar No. 1124, 61st Congress, Third Session (see Appendix XlXb, page 
173). See also. Hearings before the Sub-committee of the Committee on Commerce of 
the Senate, dated Feb. 8, 1911. 

t See Appendix XXII, page 230. 

} See Appendix XXIII, page 237. 



12 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

The balance of the work does not require to be completed until within 
fifteen years from the date of approval by the proper authorities of 
said plans and works. 

Under the terms of the Bill it would be possible for the Long Sault 
Development Company to build its dam and other works in the South 
Sault channel, and the balance of the work could be delayed indefinitely, 
because the works are only to be completed "within 15 years from 
the date of approval by the proper authorities of said plans and works." 
There is no provision respecting the date at which plans must be sub- 
mitted for approval, nor the time or times at which plans must be re- 
turned embodying required modifications, etc., etc. 

Section 4 of the Bill states: 

"That if said Long Sault Development Company, or any other 
Company or Companies acting with it in such development, shall 
develop power by the construction of works a part of which shall 
be located north of the International Boundary Line, at least one 
half of the power generated shall be delivered in the United States : 
Provided that, when in the opinion of the Secretary of War and the 
Chief of Engineers use cannot be found in the United States for the 
full share thus assigned to this country the surplus may be tem- 
porarily diverted to Canada, but shall be returned to the United 
States when in the opinion of said officers it is needed. " 

There is not now, and will not be in the near future, any demand in 
Canada for a "surplus to be temporarily diverted to Canada." This 
clause was apparently inserted to form the basis of a claim for a permit 
to divert the surplus to the United States — ^the obvious argument being 
that, as the Bill provided for a diversion of the surplus to Canada if 
not required in the United States, it would only be fair to allow the 
unused portion of Canada's half of the power to be exported to the 
United States. Then, when Canadian citizens desired to purchase 
energy thus diverted to the States, they would find that contracts for a 
term of years had been entered into which the Company could not 
abrogate.* It is also of interest to note that, while the Company in the 
plans submitted at the Toronto hearing showed a proposed develop- 
ment of 500,000 h.p. south of the boundary, they only proposed to 
develop 100,000 h.p. on the Canadian side. It is hardly necessary to 
point out that under such circumstances, they could sell their 500,000 
h.p. where they pleased, and, as it would be generated in the United 
States, the Canadian Government would have absolutely no control 

* With regard to the exportation of electricity, see. The ExportaMon of Electricity, 
by Arthur V. White in The University Magazine, October, 1910, pp. 460-467, also' 
respecting The Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act consult Water-Powers of Canada, 
Commission of Conservation, Canada, 1911, p. 66, et seq; also for Act, Regulations 
and Form of License see ihid. p. 341, et seq. 



3 Ul &, 

01 Q. -^ 

S 3 I 

9 ^ g 



se s 



< 






o 




(J 


d: 




Ul 


Ul 




UJ 






^1 


o a. 




n 15, 


d 1 
o u 




u S 


S S^ 




Ul ?i 


2 a 

Z =: 




^5 


_ a 






Sic 




a^ 


3^ 

4 




1 


UJ 




h- 






it) 


1- 










s s o 






"l3° 



::acs'3^ 




S > L. u 
!i t S EC 



\ / 

V. 











< 

< 
z 
< 
o 

z 










Ul 






z 
o 

< 

o 
a. 
a: 
o 
o 




ZK u,0 
W y in V- 

•^ 2 ^ 

ills 
& I . 








LONG SAULT POWER PROJECT 13 

over it. A Bill of this character is one of great importance to Canada 
because of its possible effects on Canadian interests. 

Parent and Allied Corporations of the Long Sault Development 

Company 

In the opening paragraphs of this discussion it was stated that the 
Long Sault Development Company is only one part of a strong financial 
and commercial combination seeking to control power development 
at, and in the vicinity of, the Long Sault rapids. It is in order now to 
consider the elements constituting this combination. Back of the ac- 
tivities to secure control of all the water-power development, power 
transmission and other rights and privileges at, and in the vicinity of, 
the Long Sault rapids is the Aluminum Company of America, commonly 
known as the Aluminum Trust. Connected with the Aluminum Company 
is the St. Lawrence Securities Company, a holding company through 
which provision was made for an issue of $1,550,000 of stock to provide 
funds: 

"for the actual cost of improvements of the canal and other prop- 
erty of the St. Lawrence River Power Co., or the development of 
any water rights along the Little Sault owned or controlled. " 

The St. Lawrence Securities Company holds securities in the fol- 
lowing United States companies: 

St. Lawrence County Electric and Water Company, 

The St. Lawrence Water Company, 

The Massena Electric Light and Power Company, 

The St. Lawrence Transmission Company, 

The St. Lawrence River Power Company, and 

The Long Sault Development Company. 

Upon the Canadian side of the river the Aluminum Company of 
America and the St. Lawrence River Power Company, (of New York 
state) either directly or indirectly, control the St. Lawrence Power Com- 
pany and the St. Lawrence Power Transmission Company. The 
Stormont Electric Light & Power Company — the distributing agent for 
the St. Lawrence Power Co. — and the Cornwall Street Railway, Light 
& Power Company, are both controlled by the Sun Life Assurance 
Company of Montreal. 

The probable inter-relationships of these various companies are 
indicated by the accompanying diagram. 

Aluminum Gompant of America 

The Pittsburgh Reduction Company was incorporated in 1889 in 
tke state of Pennsylvania j but the name was changed to the Aluminum 



14 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

Company of America on January 1, 1907. In August, 1906, by purchase 
through the St. Lawrence Securities Company of the St. Lawrence County 
Electric & Water Company (capital, $100,000), the St. Lawrence Water 
Company (capital, $100,000), the Massena Electric Light and Power 
Company (capital $50,000) and the St. Lawrence River Power Company, 
the Aluminum Company acquired absolute control of extensive electric- 
power facilities at Massena, N.Y. 

Capital Stock. — The capital stock, authorized and issued, is $20,000,- 
000, consisting of $19,400,000 common and $600,000 six per cent, cumu- 
lative preferred; par, $100. 

Oncers.— Arthur V. Davis, Pres.; C. M. Hall, 1st V. P.; A. K. 
Lawrie, 2nd V. P. ; G. R. Gibbons, Sec. and Asst. Treas. ; R. E. Withers, 
Treas. and Asst. Sec, Pittsburgh, Pa. 

Directors.— G. H. Clapp, A. V. Davis, D. L. Gillespie, C. M. Hall, 
A. K Lawrie, A. W. Mellon, R. B. Mellon. 

General Office, Park Building, Pittsburgh, Pa. 

New York Office, 99 John St. 



St. Lawrence SBciTRiTiEa Company 

The St. Lawrence Securities Company was incorporated March 
14, 1906, in New York state, as a holding company, to acquire the 
stocks of the St. Lawrence County Electric and Water Company, the 
St. Lawrence Water Company, the Massena Electric Light and Power 
Company, and the St. Lawrence River Power Company. 

Capital Stock. — $100,000. AH owned by the Aluminum Company 
of Americla. 

BoTided Z)c6«.— $1,450,000 collateral trust gold 4s; dated April 
16, 1906; due Jan. 1, 1956. Authorized issue, $3,000,000, of which 
$1,450,000 were issuable upon delivery of $1,600,000 common, and 
$2,700,000 preferred stock of the St. Lawrence Power Company, and 
the remaining $1,550,000 were reserved to be issued for the actual 
cost of improvements of the canal and other property of the St. Law- 
rence River Power Company, or the development of any water rights 
owned or controlled along the Little Sault. 

Officers: Chas. M. Hall, President; John F. Charlton, Secretary. 

Office, Massena, N.Y. 

It vnll he observed that $1,550,000 were reserved for the development 
of any water rights owned or controlled along the Little Sault. 



I?- 




PoitTIOX OI'- L(JXG SAri.T liAI'IDS 




St. Lawrexce Kivek Intake .jf the St. Lawhe.nce JtivEi; PdWEi 
Compaxy'.'^ Caxal, :\Ia.s,sexa, X. Y. 



LONG SAULT POWER PROJECT 15 

St. Lawrence Rivejr Power Co. (New York) 

The property and franchises of the St. Lawrence Power Company 
of Massena, N.Y., a domestic corporation organized under and by 
virtue of Chapter 484 of the Laws of 1896 of the state of New York, 
intituled "An Act to incorporate the St. Lawrence Power Company 
of Massena, St. Lawrence county, New York," and supplemented by 
Chapter 542 of the Laws of 1898 of the state of New York, intituled 
"An Act supplementary to an act intituled 'An Act to incorporate 
the St. Lawrence Power Company of Massena, St. Lawrence county. 
New York,' " were, on the 3rd day of July, 1902, sold under, and by 
virtue of a judgment, or decree, of the Circuit Court of the United 
States for the Northern District of New York, rendered in an action 
pending in said court between the Commercial Trust Company of New 
Jersey and the Morristown Trust Company, complainants, and the 
St. Lawrence Power Company of Massena, New York, the Standard 
Trust Company of New York and United States Mortgage and Trust 
Company, defendants, and dated, entered and filed in the clerk's office 
of the said Circuit Court of the United States in the city of Utica, state 
of New York, on the 13th day of May, 1902. 

The assets of the St. Lawrence Power Company, thus sold 
under foreclosure,* subsequently passed to the St. Lawrence River 



* " In connection with our first description of the water-power plant at Massena, 
N. Y., in our issue of Dec. 16, 1897, we pointed out that the Company's financial 
success would hinge largely on the possibility of marketing its power after it was 
developed; and that it was likely to have great difficulty in doing this. In con- 
firmation of our prediction, it is now announced that the St. Lawrence Power Co., 
which has built and owns the plant, is to be reorganized, foreclosure proceedings 
being undertaken on behalf of the bond-holders. The water-power plant, which was 
fully described in our issue of Feb. 21st, 1901, is capable of furnishing about 35,000 
h.p., and can be enlarged by a comparatively small investment to double this capacity. 
Practically the only chance for marketing this is through the establishment of local 
manufacturing plants, and it requires extreme inducements for any such enterprises 
to locate at a point so remote from markets. There are only two classes of industries 
in which the cost of power is so large an item that they can afford to even consider 
such a location. These are the electro-chemical industry and the paper industry. 
The very large number of huge water-power plants which have been built during 
the past few years, however, has given the purchasers of power for \ase in these 
industries plenty of choice; and Massena power must be sold at a very low figure 
indeed to counter-balance the advantages of central location and convenient trans- 
portation which other water-power plants can offer.'' (^Engineering News, April 3, 
1902, p. 274). 

"The St. Lawrence Power Co.'s plant at Massena, N.Y., was sold on July 3 to 
Mark T. Cor, of New York, representing the reorganization committee of first and 
second mortgage holders. The price paid was $500,000. This plant cost more than 
^10,000,000; the bonds and stock were largely held in England. The plant is first- 
class in all its equipments, with a capacity for developing 100,000 to 150,000 h.p." 
(Engineering News, July 24, -1902, p. 57.) 



16 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

Power Company which was incorporated in the state of New York, 
July 19, 1902.* This company (which is controlled by stock owner- 
ship) owns 1,800 acres of land and valuable water rights at Massena, 
N. Y., with a canal 3^ miles long from the St. Lawrence river to its 
power plant at Massena. The power house is built on the banks of the 
Grass river, the tail-race discharging into this stream. They develop 
40,000 h.p.— 30,000 h.p. direct and 10,000 alternating. The 30,000 h.p. 
direct current is sold to the Pittsburgh Reduction Company for use in 
their Massena aluminum works. The price charged the Aluminum 
Company is $15.00 per h.p. per annum, but the two companies have 
a number of interests in common. The Company is enlarging its 
power house to meet the increased demands of the Aluminum Com- 
pany, and is installing units to develop 24,000 h.p. direct and 6,000 h.p. 
alternating, making a total development of 70,000 h.p. 

Capital Stocfc.— Authorized, $3,500,000 common and $3,500,000 
six per cent, non-cumulative preferred; outstanding, $3,500,000 
common and $3,000,000 preferred; par, $100. 

The St. Lawrence Securities Company owns $1,600,000 of the 
common and $2,700,000 of the preferred, and same are deposited as 
collateral security under that company's bonds. 

Bonded De6<.— $500,000 first gold 5s; dated January 2, 1903; 
due January 2, 1913. United States Mortgage and Trust Company, 
New York trustee. Subject to caU at any time at 105. 

$501,000 consolidated gold 5s; dated December 1, 1905. 
Authorized, $1,500,000, of which $500,000 are reserved to retire first 5s. 

Officers.— A.. V. Davis, President; G. M. Hall, Vice-President; G. R. 
Gibbons, Sec. and Asst. Treasurer; R. E. Withers, Treasurer and Asst. 
Secretary. 

Directors. — ^The foregoing and A. W. Mellon, G. H. Glapp, D. L. 
Gillespie, A. K. Lawrie. 

Main office, Massena, N. Y. 

New York office, 99 John St. 

An examination of the files of the New York Public Service Commis- 
sion, second district, state of New York, at Albany, N.Y. shows that the 
St. Lawrence River Power Company have not ffied an annual report with 
the Public Service Commission. This matter has been the subject of cor- 
respondence between the Commission and the Company. The attorney 
of the Company, Mr. Neil F. Towner, Albany, N.Y., has advised the 
Gommission that the St. Lawrence River Power Company does not 
supply any electric current to the public or to consumers generally. He 
states: 



* For papers of incorpoTati(», etc., Bee Appendix XII, page 1^3. 




^tt>4-i|fHtft^'^!rc'r-'Tr T: i ] 







St. LA^\'RExcE Rivek PnA\E]{ Company's Old Plaxt, Massexa, N. Y. 




Old axd New Power Hocses of 8t. Lawkence Rh-er Power Company, 
(Aluminum Co.j, Massena, X. Y. 



LONG SAULT POWER PROJECT 17 

"It is, as stated, merely the power-house of the Aluminum 
Company of America. Any current that is furnished to the public 
generally is furnished through the Massena Electric Light and 
Power Company and the St. Lawrence Transmission Company." 

St. Lawrence Power Company (Canada) 

The St. Lawrence Power Company was incorporated by an Act 
of the Dominion Parliament, 1 Edward VII. Chapter HI (assented 
to 23rd May, 1901).* The Company is empowered to: 

"(a) manufacture, use, supply and dispose of electricity, water 
and gas, and water, hydraulic or other power by means of wires, 
cables, pipes, conduits, machinery or other appliances; and con- 
struct, maintain and operate works for the production, sale and 
distribution thereof, and for the purposes aforesaid may construct, 
acquire, use, maintain and operate canals, water-courses, raceways 
and water-powers in or adjacent to the St. Lawrence river on the 
north side thereof at any points eastward from Hoople creek, in 
the county of Stormont, in the province of Ontario, to the eastern 
end of the Soulanges canal, and construct dams, wing-dams, sluices, 
conduits and buildings in connection therewith: Provided that the 
works hereby authorized shall not be commenced until the plans 
thereof have first been submitted to and approved by the Governor 
in Council; 

(b) acquire patent rights, letters patent of invention, processes, 
options, and other rights and privileges and again dispose thereof; 

(c) manufacture, acquire and dispose of pulp wood, pulp or 
the products thereof; 

(d) manufacture and sell calcium carbide and all products 
produced in its manufacture; acetylene gas and other gases and 
products manufactured from calcium carbide; 

(e) manufacture and deal in all minerals and the by-products 
thereof; construct furnaces, ovens and retorts for the reduction of 
such minerals; 

(f) construct tramways, wharfs, docks, offices and all neces- 
sary buildings, and purchase, hire, build and repair vessels required 
for the business of the Company; 

(g) construct, acquire and operate by electricity, steam or 
other motive power, vessels for the transportation of passengers 
and freight, or towing of barges or other vessels in the river St. 
Lawrence and the lakes, canals and rivers connected therewith." 

Further: 

"The Company may acquire and operate the works of any 
company having powers wholly or in part similar to the powers of 
the Company, and may acquire the capital stock, bonds, rights, 
franchises, powers, privileges or properties of any such Company, 
and may enter into agreements for any amalgamation with such 
Company, on such terms and conditions as are agreed upon, 
and subject to such restrictions as to the directors seem fit; . ." 

* See Appendix X, page 121. 



18 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

And, again, with respect to lands in, or adjacent to, the St. Lawrence 
river, between the mouth of Hoople creek and the eastern end of 
Sheek island, and the land not more than two miles distant from the 
Soulanges canal, and lying between the eastern end of the Soulanges 
canal and a point not more than five miles in a westerly direction from 
the eastern terminus of the Soulanges canal, the company has powers 
of expropriation, subjebt, however, to the provisions of the Railway 
Act. The capital stock of the Company is $1,500,000, provision being 
made in the Act to increase the capital stock from time to time to an 
amount not exceeding $5,000,000. 

The St. Lawrence Power Company derive their power under license 
from the Department of Railways and Canals, from a plant on the Corn- 
wall canal at Mille Roches, Ontario. It is constructed to receive four 
generators of 1,350 h.p. each; but only two have been installed. They 
operate under 30 feet head. Their maximum load is 1,600 h.p., which 
means that, on their installed capacity, they have a surplus of nearly 
1,100 h.p. and on their available capacity, they would have 3,000 h.p. 
to spare. The consumption is said to be divided as follows: 

CornwaU 800 h.p. 

Head of Cornwall canal 300 h.p. 

St. Lawrence Paper Co., Mille Roches 300 h.p. 

Lighting Cornwall canal 200 h.p. 

As they sell the energy for $15.00 per horse-power per annum, it is 
evident that they have been waging .a vigorous campaign to obtain new 
business. This plant is said to be taking its water through a channel 
not authorized in the lease granted by the Department of Railways 
and Canals. 

A search in the offices of the Secretary of State, Ottawa, and of the 
Provincial Secretary, Toronto, failed to show that any annual or other 
reports have been filed by the St. Lawrence Power Company. 

So far as the operations of the Canadian subsidiaries of the 
Aluminum Company of America are concerned, the St. Lawrence Power 
Company is a counterpart of the power-producing company in the 
United States known as the St. Lawrence River Power Company, with 
works at Massena, N.Y. 

Oncers.— George G. Foster, K.C., Pres.; E.W. T. Gray, Vice-Pres.; 
T. J. Coonan, Sec.-Treas. 

Directors. — George G. Foster, K.C., Samuel W. Foster, Gardner 
Stevens, C. Gordon MacKinnon, E. W. T. Gray. 

St. Lawrence Power Transmission Company 

The St. Lawrence Power Transmission Company, Limited, was in- 
corporated by special Act, 9-10 Edw. VII. Chap. 166, of the Parliament 



LONG SAULT POWER PROJECT 19 

of Canada, (assented to 4th May, 1910)*. This Company is empowered — 
subject to certain restrictions of the Electricity Inspection Act, 1907, 
and the Railway Act — to: 

" (a) construct, maintain, operate, use and manage conduits, 
tunnels, transmission lines, structures, buildings, machinery, plant, 
appliances, instruments and devices, and erect and maintain poles 
and towers, and lay and maintain pipes, cables, wires or other con- 
ductors and connect them with similar lines in other provinces and 
with similar lines in the United States for the purpose of importa- 
tion into Canada only; 

(b) acquire by purchase or lease electricity and electric, 
pneumatic or other current, power or force, and may supply, 
distribute, sell, lease, contract for or otherwise dispose thereof for 
the purposes of light, heat or power or any other purpose for which 
electricity or electric or other power, current or energy can be used; 

(c) acquire such lands, easements and privileges as are 
necessary for the purposes of its undertaking." 

The Company, by its enabling Act, has conferred upon it powers 
of expropriation in the counties of Frontenac, Leeds, Grenville, Dundas, 
Stormont and Glengarry and the city of Kingston, in the Province of 
Ontario, and in the counties of Soulanges, Vaudreuil and Jacques Cartier 
and the city of Montreal, in the Province of Quebec, for the purposes 
of its transmission line only. 

The Company is not empowered to export electricity or electric 
or other power to the United States. 

In the Act, there are provisions respecting the approval by Parlia- 
ment of plans, specifications, etc., before construction may be begun. 
These limitations are set forth as follows: 

"The Governor in Council shall not give his approval to the 
construction of any further canals, water-courses, raceways, dams, 
wing-dams, sluices or other works on the river St. Lawrence by 
the St. Lawrence Power Company, under the provisions of Chapter 
111 of the statutes of 1901, or otherwise, nor agree to or approve 
of any terms or conditions respecting the diversion of water or 
power from Canada, the consideration and rate to be paid therefor, 
the location of all dams and generating plant, the reservation of 
power for use in Canada, the safeguarding of Canadian canals, 
adjacent lands and navigation, the procuring of consent thereto 
from the British Government under the Ashburton Treaty or other 
treaty, unless and until the plans, specifications, and all terms and 
conditions shall have been first submitted to and approved by 
Parliament. 

"Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to constitute an approval 
by Parliament of any future development of water power by 
erecting a dam in or across the St. Lawrence river under Chapter 



* See Appendix IX, page 117. 



20 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

111 of the statutes of 1901, intituled 'An Act to incorporate the 
St. Lawrence Power Company/ or otherwise; nor shall the Com- 
pany hereby incorporated be authorized to transmit power 
generated by the St. Lawrence Power Company other than the 
power generated by and in connection with the works already con- 
structed by the said St. Lawrence Power Company." 

Capital Stock.— The capital stock of the Company is $250,000. 

The incorporators are: Francis H. McGuigan, Toronto; James W. 
Rickey, Massena; WiUiam Chalmers MacLaren, Brockville; Isaac 
Phillip Wiser, Prescott; Peter Ernest Campbell and Archibald Denny, 
both of Cornwall. 

For copy of the Enabling Act, see 9-10 Edw. VII. chap. 166. 

Cornwall Street Railway, Light and Power Co. Ltd. 

AND 

Stormont Electric Light and Power Co. Ltd. 

One named Andrew Hodge held from the Department of Railways 
and Canals, a lease, or leases, to generate power from the surplus water 
of the Cornwall canal, at hydraulic lots Nos. 3 and 4. This power was 
used for driving a flour mill, a woollen mill and a planing mill. Subse- 
quently, the flour mill and the woollen mill privileges were taken over 
by the Cornwall Street Railway, Light and Power Co., and the 
planing mill privilege was taken over by the Stormont Electric Light 
and Power Co., Ltd. 

Both the Cornwall Street Railway, Light and Power Co., and 
the Stormont Electric Light and Power Co., are controlled and operated 
by the Sun Life Assurance Co. of Montreal, which holds the bonds of 
these companies. The General Manager for both companies is Wm. 
Hodge, with head office at Cornwall, Ont. 

The Cornwall Street Railway, Light and Power Co., was in- 
corporated under Ontario Letters Patent, April 18, 1902, for the pur- 
pose of operating a railway in the town of Cornwall and township of 
Cornwall and to perform other functions provided for in the Act respect- 
ing the supplying of steam, heat, electricity, or natural gas for heat, 
light or power. 

Capital Stock. — ^The capital stock is $200,000. 

Board of Management: President, Samuel Hamilton Ewing; Vice- 
Pres., Abner Kingman; Directors, John Redpath Dougall, John Mc- 
Kergon and James P. Cleghorn (deceased Dec. 14, 1911; not yet replaced) 

The Stormont Electric Light and Power Co. was empowered by 
Ontario Letters Patent, granted Sept. 23, 1887: 



LONG SAULT POWER PROJECT 21 

"To construct, maintain, complete and operate works for the 
production, sale and distribution of electricity for the purposes of 
light, heat or power in the said town of Cornwall and the township 
of Cornwall in the said county of Stormont and to conduct the 
same by any means through, under and along the streets, highways 
and public places of the said municipalities as any one or more of 
the said municipalities may by by-law authorize, with power to 
acquire, hold and use land, water-power and machinery and other 
personal property for the purposes of the said works and to sell, 
lease and otherwise dispose of the same and to distribute and sell, 
electricity for light, heat or power and generally to have and 
exercise all the powers, rights and privileges conferred upon or 
appertaining to a company incorporated under the hereinafter 
mentioned Act." 

The present Capital Stock is $50,000. 

Board of Management : President, Samuel Hamilton Ewing; Vice- 
Pres., Abner Kingman; Directors, John Redpath Dougall, John Mc- 
Kergon and James P. Gleghorn (deceased Dec. 14, 1911, not yet replaced) 

The Stormont Electric Light and Power Co., Ltd., is the distribut- 
ing agent for the St. Lawrence Power Co., of Cornwall. 



New Yokk and Ontario Powek Company 

The New York and Ontario Power Company is not associated with 
the interests allied with the Long Sault Development Company, and 
the interests behind it have been very aggressive in opposing the 
operations of the Long Sault Company. 

The New York and Ontario Power Company controls a power 
site situated on the St. Lawrence river near the town of Waddington, 
N.Y. This site is situated on a minor channel of the St. Lawrence river 
known as Little river,* which flows between the mainland of the state 
of New York and the large island in the St. Lawrence river originally 
called "Isle aux Rapide du Plat," but now, known as Ogden island. 
Early in the last century, and before any other artificial works were 
constructed on either side of the main stream, a dam was built across 
the channel of Little river opposite the village of Waddington. On 
April 1, 1808, the New York State legislature, by an Act (Chap. 121, 
Laws of 1808, N.Y.), conferred upon David A. and Thomas L. Ogden 
and their associates, the right to construct a dam and lock at the site 
above mentioned, and to use the water impounded by the dam for the 
generation of power for any commercial purpose. The powers conferred 
under this Act were limited to a term of 75 years. On the 17th of April, 



* Not to be confused with the Little river between Sheek and Barnhart islands. 



22 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

1826, an Act (Chap. 280, Laws of 1826, N.Y.), was passed in which it 
was set forth that: 

"David A. Ogden of the county of St. Lawrenec, being pro- 
prietor of both sides of the branch of the river St. Lawrence, in the town 
of Madrid [Waddington], and across which river he has erected a 
dam and locks in pursuance of an Act passed April 1st, 1808 shall, 
and he is hereby declared to be vested with all the rights of the peo- 
ple of this State to the lands situated below the said dam, and which 
by reason thereof has been rendered susceptible to improvement, 
and extending down the branch of the said river from the said dam 
to the navigable waters thereof, to have and to hold to the said 
David A. Ogden, his heirs and assigns forever." 

These two Acts therefore vested in David A. Ogden, in per- 
petuity, all riparian rights on both sides of the channel of the Little 
river, and also the right to develop and utilize the natural flow of 
the said stream for the development of hydraulic power for any 
purpose whatsoever. Some time subsequent to the construction of 
the dam, David A. Ogden, or his heirs or successors, built a bridge 
connecting Ogden island with the mainland. This bridge, situated 
about 1,000 ft. above the dam, consists of an earth and dry wall em- 
bankment containing two openings for the passage of water. At the 
present time, this bridge is the controlling factor with respect to the 
water level in the upper reach of Little river. 

All the rights and privileges originally held by David A. Ogden 
and his associates are now held by the New York and Ontario Power Co. 
This company has entered into a contract with the Hydro-Electric 
Power Commission of Ontario to supply various stated quantities of 
power for the consump1;ion of certain municipalities in eastern Ontario.* 
The dam at Waddington is old and in a very dilapidated condition. 
The roadway and dam above referred to ate shown in the accompany- 
ing illustration. 

The nominal head for power development at Waddington, N.Y., 
is about 11 or 12 feet (11.6 ft.). The operating head will possibly be 
about 9 or 10 ft. 

The New York and Ontario Power Company was incorporated 
April 18, 1906, in the state of New York, to furnish light and power to 
municipalities and industries in northern New York. 

"The objects are to be manufacturing, using and transmitting 
electricity for producing light, heat or power and in lighting streets, 
avenues, public parks and places, and public and private buildings 



* For the terms of the proposed contract for the supply of 15,000 h.p. by the 
New York and Ontario Power Co. to the Hydro-Electric Power Commission of 
Ontario, see Water-Powers of Canada, Commission of Conservation, Canada, 1911, 
pp. 54-55. 



LONG SAULT POWER PROJECT 23 

of cities, villages and towns within this state. The names of the 
towns, villages, cities and counties in which the operations of the 
corporation are to be carried on, are as follow: 

The villaiges of Malone, Tupper Lake and Saranac Lake, in the 
county of Franklin, state of New York; the city of Plattsburgh 
in the county of Clinton, state of New York; the villages of Wad- 
dington, Madrid, Canton, Gouverneur and Potsdam, in the county 
of St. Lawrence, state of New York; the city of Watertown in 
the county of Jefferson, state of New York; the villages of Adams 
and Carthage, in the county of Jefferson, state of New York; 
the village of Booneville in the county of Oneida, state of New York; 
the city of Syracuse, in the county of Onondaga, state of New York; 
the city of Oswego, in the county of Oswego, state of New York." 

The officers of the Company are: President, W. C. Connolly; Vice- 
President, James Thomson; Secretary, J. T. Heckenby; Treasurer, 
J. G. Allan, of Hamilton, Ont. Other directors, James A. Thomson, 
Hamilton, Ont., James Wilson, Fergus, Ont.; F. W. Gates, Hamilton, 
Ont.; D. J. Grichton, Jr., Ogdensburg, N.Y.; Resident Engineer, B. B. 
Tucker, Waddington, N.Y. 

According to returns made to the Public Service Commission, 
Second District, Albany, N.Y., the funded debt actually outstanding 
Dec. 31, 1911, is $200,000; capital stock actually outstanding Dec. 31, 
1911, $181,400. The authorized capital stock is $2,000,000. 

For papers of incorporation, etc., see Appendix XV. 



Newspaper Peopaganda 

The Long Sault power interests on the United States' side are said 
from time to time to have conducted a newspaper propaganda, designed 
to advance their projects. For example, the following is a copy of a 
despatch sent to the Toronto News, from Brockville, Ont., May 10, 1912, 
in which it is stated that Mr. Jas. W. Rickey, Chief Engineer of the 
Long Sault Company recently addressed a meeting in Cornwall deal- 
ing with hydro-electric matters. 

"Brockville, Ont., May 10. — A delegation composed of mem- 
bers of the Boards of Trade of Brockville, Cornwall, Kingston, 
Prescott and other towns and cities in eastern Ontario will shortly 
seek an audience with the Provincial cabinet at Toronto for the 
purpose of setting forth the views of this district on the power 
situation. Later, the same delegation will appear before Premier 
Borden at Ottawa. 

" Briefly, the claim of eastern Ontario is that it is pajdng taxes 
to support the work of the Hydro-Electric Commission and is re- 
ceiving nothing in return. The delegation goes armed with briefs 
and arguments setting forth the desirability of passing legislation 
granting permission to dam the Long Sault rapids near Cornwall. 



24 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

■'Once developed, it is said the Long Sault would give ample 
power to every town in eastern Ontario. 

"Mr. James W. Rickey, chief engineer at the Long Sault, told 
a meeting in Cornwall recently that Canada would be entitled to at 
least one-half of the power developed and that this company was 
willing to leave this question of the division of power, to engineers 
of the Canadian and American Governments." 

The Mayor of Cornwall has stated that he knows of no meeting 
having been held at Cornwall. With reference to a delegation com- 
posed of members of the Boards of Trade of Cornwall, and other places, 
as asserted in the newspaper article, the President of the Board of 
Trade in Cornwall has stated that he has no knowledge of any plans for 
any delegation such as is referred to and he knows of no meeting, 
such as the News item describes as being addressed by Mr. Rickey, 
having been held in Cornwall. 

MEMORANDtTM RESPECTING ThEATY RiGHTS OF CaNADA IN THE St. 

Lawrence at the Long Sault* 

The Treaty of Paris, 1783, defined, in part, the boundary between the 
United States and Canada as following from the ppint at which the forty- 
fifth parallel strikes the river St. Lawrence, " along the middle of the said 
river [St. Lawrence] into lake Ontario." 

Ghenf 1814 ^^ Article VI. of the Treaty of Ghent, it was recited that: 

"Doubts have arisen what was the middle of the said 
river, lakes and water communications and whether certain islands 
lying in the same were within the dominions of His Britannic 
Majesty or of the United States." 

It, further, provided that to finally decide these doubts, they 
should be referred to two Commissioners, who should designate the 
boundary through the St. Lawrence, Great lakes and water communica- 
tions. 

The Commissioners proceeded without any fixed rule except that 
the line should be a water-line, and, therefore, should not divide any 
island. During the discussions, difliculties arose respecting the naviga- 
tion of the water communications. In 1821, it was proposed that the 
fimal award should contain a joint declaration to the effect that they 
had acted on the principle that the navigation of the boundary waters 
should continue free and open to citizens of both powers, irrespective 
of the position of the boundary line, the declaration to be assented to by 



* From memorandum by James White. 



LONG SAULT POWER PROJECT 25 

both Governments before the declaration was made. It seems, however, 
that, while the proposition was acceded to by the President of the United 
States, the British Minister at Washington declined to sanction it on 
behaK of Great Britain, on the ground that such a declaration by the 
Commissioners might serve to cast doubt on what was a matter of right. 
The award of the Commissioners, dated June 18, 1822, was as fol- 
lows: 

"The undersigned Commissioners appointed, sworn and au- 
thorized in virtue of the sixth article of the Treaty of peace and 
amity, between His Britannic Majesty and the United States of 
America concluded at Ghent on the twenty-fourth day of December, 
in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and fourteen. 

Do decide and declare that the following described 

line is the true boundary which is more clearly indicated on a series 
of maps accompanying this report, exhibiting correct surveys and 
delineations of all the rivers, lakes, water communications and 
islands embraced by the sixth article of the Treaty of Ghent, by a 
black line, shaded on the British side with red, and on the American 

side with blue is the true boundary intended by 

the two before mentioned treaties, that is to say; 

" Beginning at a stone monument erected by Andrew EUicott, 
Esquire, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and 
seventeen, on the south bank or shore, of the said river Iroquois or 
Gataraqua, (now called the St. Lawrence) which monument. . . 
. indicates the point at which the forty-fifth parallel strikes 
the said river, thence to and along the middle of the main [St. 
Lawrence] river, until it approaches the eastern extremity of Barn- 
hart's island; thence northerly along the channel which divides 
the last mentioned island from the Canada shore, keeping one hun- 
dred yards distant from the island, until it approaches Sheek's 
island; thence along the middle of the strait which divides Barn- 
hart's and Sheek's island, to the channel called the Long Sault, which 
separates the two last mentioned islands from the Lower Long 
Sault island;* thence westerly (crossing the centre of the last 
mentioned channel) until it approaches within one hundred yards 
of the north shore of the Lower Sault island; thence up the north 
branch of the river, keeping to the north of, and near, the Lower 
Sault island." 

In the vicinity of the Long Sault rapids, Barnhart island, 1716 
acres; Long Sault island, 1969 acres, and Croil island, 1859 acres, were 
awarded to the United States. Great Britain received Cornwall island, 
1972 acres and Sheek island, 1135 acres. As the main channel of the 
St. Lawrence passes south of Barnhart island, the United States thus be- 
came possessed of both shores of the main channel of the St. Lawrence 
from the foot of Long Sault island to the foot of Barnhart island — a 
distance of eight mUes. 



* Now called Long Sault island. "Upper Long Sault" island is now known 
as Croil island. 



26 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

This unequal division was due to the anxiety of Great Britain to 
possess Wolfe island, opposite Kingston, Ont.* Possession of this 
island by the United States would have permitted the erection of forti- 
fications, etc., that would have threatened the principal British naval 
station on the Great lakes. 

* "When the survey was undertaken to decide the place of the above boundary 
line, several important qxiestions arose not contemplated in the Treaty; among 
which was that as the middle of the river is a line equidistant from both banks of the 
river, this line would often intersect islands, which would give a boimdary Hne on 
land, under circumstances very inconvenient to each power, especially on civil and 
criminal processes, ilhcit trade, &c. &c. It was therefore, determined that to what- 
ever power the greater part of an intersected island should belong, that power should 
have the whole of the island, and thus avoid all of the above evils. This decision was 
approved and confirmed by the Foreign OflSce and at Washington. It may be said, 
by following the middle of the greatest navigable channel, a boundary line could have 
been readily established; but on my great surveys of this continent to the latitude 
of 60 degrees north, I examined almost all the great rivers from their sources to the 
eastern seas and the Pacific ocean, and found them all obeying the same physical law 
with the great rivers in Europe, and in a bolder manner. On this continent, the deep 
channel for 5 miles out of 6 miles will be found on the north side of the river. After 
the survey was finished this truth was forced on the United States Commissioner, 
and he insisted on the middle of the deep channel for the bovmdary line, but was 
kept to the letter of the Treaty. The Treaty of 1783 gave peace to the United States, 
but their treasuries were exhausted. To raise money the state of New York sold to 
the Holland Company large tracts of land, among which were aU the islands in the 
river Cataraqui [St. Lawrence] from St. Regis to Jake Ontario, which, by the boundary 
to be drawn, should belong to the state of New York. 

The several naval commanders who had been in charge of Kingston harbour, 
the vessels on the lakes, &c., had sent to the Admiralty, from time to time, their opin- 
ions on the necessity of securing to Great Britain certain islands for the protection 
of the Navy, &c., at Kingston, &c. These were transmitted to the Foreign Office 
and forwarded to the British Commissioners, and every place pointed out by the 
Admiralty for the safety of our navy, &c., was obtained; the principal of which was 
Grande [Wolfe] isle, opposite to Kingston. By the Treaty, this island belonged to 
the United States and, on account of the Holland Company, was considered hopeless; 
but at the time the division of the islands took place, certain pecuUar circumstances 
happened, which enabled the British Conmiissioners to exchange Grande isle above 
the Niagara Falls for Grande isle [Wolfe island] opposite Kingston, on con- 
dition of indemnifying the Holland Company by giving up British isles to make 
up 13,359i acres — ^the difference in area between the two islands. This will account 
for several islands in the river Cataraqui being placed on the side of the United States. 

As the obtaining Grande isle [Wolfe island] near Kingston was strongly recom- 
mended by the Admiralty, I paid more than common attention to the depth of water 
along its shores, and fotmd the south side to be so shoaly that, in many places, at 100 
yards from the shore there was only 4 or 5 feet of water. In order to have the free 
use of this side of the island it was proposed and agreed that the boundary line should 
be 100 yards from the shores of all islands, and if the space between the opposite 
shores was less than 200 yards then the boundary line should be the middle between 
the two shores, and the distance of 100 yards also gives free space for the construction 
of rafts, &c., to both nations. — (David Thompson, Astronomer and Surveyor under 
Articles VI and VII of the Treaty of Ghent; in Ontario Historical Society Trans- 
actions, I, 117.) 



LONG SAULT POWER PROJECT 27 

Ashburton In the negotiations preceding the Ashburton Treaty, 

Treaty, 1842 ti^g question of the Maine boundary overshadowed all 
other differences between Great Britain and the United States. As 
soon as they had reached a stage that portended a satisfactory settle- 
ment, Lord Ashburton and Mr. Webster took up the disputes respecting 
the boundary through the St. Mary river, through lake Superior and the 
water-communications between lake Superior and Rainy lake. 

In making the concession of St. George (Sugar) island, in the St. 
Mary river, Lord Ashburton attached Conditions of accommodation. 
On July 16, 1842, he wrote Mr. Webster: 

" In making the important concession on this boundary of the 
island of St. George, I must attach a condition to it of accommoda- 
tion, which experience has proved to be necessary in the naviga- 
tion of the great waters which bound the two countries; an accom- 
modation which can, I apprehend, be no possible inconvenience to 
either. This was asked by the British commissioner in the course 
of the attempts of compromise above alluded to; but nothing was 
done, because he was not then prepared, as I am now, to yield the 
property and sovereignty of St. George's island. 

"The first of these two cases is at the head of lake St. Clair, 
where the river of that name empties into it from lake Huron. It 
is represented, that the channel bordering the United States coast 
in this part is not only the best for navigation, but, with some 
winds, is the only serviceable passage. I do not know that, under 
such circumstances, the passage of a British vessel would be 
refused; but, on a final settlement of boundaries, it is desirable to 
stipulate for what the commissioners would probably have settled, 
had the facts been known to them. 

"The other case, of nearly the same description, occurs on the 
St. Lawrence, some miles above the boundary at St. Regis. In 
distributing the islands of the river by the commissioners. Barn- 
hart's island and the Long Sault islands were assigned to America. 
This part of the river has very formidable rapids, and the only safe 
passage is on the southern or American side, between those islands 
and the mainland.* We want a clause in our present treaty to say 
that, for a short distance, namely, from the upper end of Upper 
Long Sault islandf to the lower end of Barnhart's island, the several 
channels of the river shall be used in common by the boatmen of 
the two countries. 

" I am not aware that these very reasonable demands are 
likely to meet with any objection, especially where the United 
States will have surrendered to them all that is essential in the 
boundary I have now to propose to you." 

Mr. Webster conceded that these channels should be free and open 
to vessels of both countries, at the same time, stipulating for a similar 



* South Sault channel and main channel, 
t Croil island. 



28 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

agreement respecting the channel between Bois Blanc island — a Cana- 
dian island in Detroit river— and the Canadian shore. On July 27, 
Mr. Webster replied: 

"Besides agreeing upon the line of division through which 
these controverted portions of the boundary pass, you have sug- 
gested also, as the proposed settlement proceeds upon the ground of 
compromise and equivalents, that boats belonging to her Majesty's 
subjects may pass the falls of the Long Sault, in the St. Lawrence, 
on either side of the Long Sault islands* and that the passages 
between the islands lymg at or near the junction of the river St. 
Clair with the lake of that name shall be severally free and open to 
the vessels of both countries. There appears no reasonable objec- 
tion to what is requested in these particulars; and, on the part of 
the United States, it is desirable that their vessels, in proceeding 
from lake Erie into the Detroit river, should have the privilege 
of passing between Bois Blanc, an island belonging to England, and 
the Canadian shore, the deeper and better channel being on that 

side What has been agreed to, also, in respect to 

the common use of certain passages in the rivers and lakes, as 
already stated, must be made matter of regular stipulation." 

These terms Lord Ashburton accepted, at the same time observing: 

" I should remark, also, that the free use of the navigation of 
the Long Sault passage on the St. Lawrence must be extended to 
below Barnhart's island, for the purpose of clearing those rapids." 

Art. VII of the Ashburton Treaty provided that: 

" It is further agreed that the channels in the river St. Lawrence 
on both sides of the Long Sault islands and of Barnhart island, the 
channels in the river Detroit on both sides of the island Bois Blanc, 
and between that island and both the American and Canadian 
shores, and all the several channels and passages between the 
various islands lying near the junction of the river St. Clair with the 
lake of that name, shall be equally free and open to the ships, 
vessels, and boats of both parties." 

From the foregoing it is obvious that the United States is bound by 
the terms of the Ashburton treaty to keep the channels on both sides of 
Long Sault, Barnhart and Croil islands "free and open to the ships, vessels 
and boats of both parties;" and, further, that no constructions which 
would interfere with navigation in the slightest degree, can be erected 
in any of the channels named. 

The St. Lawrence river constitutes the great navigable highway 
from the Atlantic to the heart of North America. The preservation 



* Croil and Long Sault islands. 




X 

k3' 



2 



3 






LONG SAULT POWER PROJECT 29 

of the integrity of this highway is a matter demanding a national concern 
and action, both on the part of the Government of the Dominion of 
Canada and that of the United States. 

The time is approaching when it will become necessary to secure 
wide and deep channels for vessels by canalizing this great river. When 
such a course does become necessary, enormous and valuable water- 
powers will be created which will help, if not more than entirely, pay for 
the cost of these improvements. 

That the rights of navigation are paramount to those of power 
development, has been laid down, authoritatively, as a fundamental 
doctrine. It is necessary, therefore, that no initial step be permitted 
to be taken by any interest, or interests, that may create a condition 
of affairs which may in any way be a menace to navigation at present, 
or which might forbid or interfere with its improvement in the future. 

Present Danger in Proposal to Dam the South Sault 

The great danger at present — and it is a real danger — ^to Canada's 
rights in the St. Lawrence river, consists in the desire on the part of, 
and the efforts being made by, the Long Sault Development Company to 
construct a dam in the South Sault channel. The Company also pro- 
poses to construct a power house and lock across the channel, between 
the foot of Long Sault island and the main shore. This is part of the 
Company's large project to utilize the whole power that can be developed 
at the Long Sault.* 

Works that This important project involves the erection of a dam 

Plan Involves gome 3,800 feet long, between Barnhart island and the 
north-easterly end of Long Sault island. The channel between Barnhart 
island and Sheek island is to be widened to approximately 1,000 feet 
in width, and used for a power canal to convey water to the forebay 
of the power works which it is proposed to erect at the eastern end of 
Barnhart island. At this point it is proposed to build a dam, having 



* The Long Sault Development Company, on the American side, has acquired 
practically all of Barnhart island and the eastern half of Long Sault island together 
with riparian rights around the western end of the latter, also nearly 2,000 acres 
of land on the main shore, extending from a point opposite the eastern end of Barn- 
hart island, upstream to the Massena canal, a distance of about eight miles. Both 
companies are acquiring land on their respective sides of the river to elevation 215 
feet above sea-level, which will be well above the proposed river-level; they are 
also securing riparian rights along all tributaries of the St. Lawrence river, where 
there is any possibility of riparian damage. 



30 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

the shape of the letter V, approximately 1,450 feet long and adjacent, 
on the Canadian side, to Lock 20 of the Cornwall canal. It is proposed 
at this Bamhart island power-site to utilize a head of about 40 feet. 
The proposed dam in the South Sault channel would utilize a head of 
about 35 feet. (See accompanying plan for general scheme of pro- 
posed works.) 

The Company may also find it desirable to raise the level of the 
dam in the South Sault channel, so as to back the water up at the intake 
of the present canal leading to the power house at Massena, N.Y. The 
nominal head at the Massena power house is about 30 feet, but it is 
stated that some three or four feet of head is lost in the canal. At the 
present time this Massena power canal is being enlarged by dredging to 
permit the passage of an increased quantity of water to be delivered 
at Massena, where a new power house is under construction. 

Mr. Rickey's With respect to the extensive development proposed by 
Statement the Long Sault Development Company, it is interesting 

to note the statement made, before the Committee on Rivers and 
Harbours of the United States House of Representatives, by Mr. 
James W. Rickey, Chief Engineer of the Company. 

"This entire development," said Mr. Rickey, "is laid out with 
the idea of utilizing every bit of power that is available at this 
point ultimately — perhaps not while we are alive — but there is 
nothing done in this entire development that will hinder the com- 
plete development of the potentiality of the St. Lawrence river 
at this point. That is really a very important factor. Many water 
powers in the past, and comparatively a short time ago, have been 
imperfectly developed; they have just skimmed the cream off and 
prevented a complete development." 

And, with regard to the project, Mr. G. R. Malby, who has intro- 
duced bills into Congress for the Company, says : 

"There is just one more point. There seems to be some idea 
that the water which goes to the north of Bamhart island is to be 
developed half in Canadian territory. If you get on to the scheme 
you will see that is not quite correct. The proposition, as Mr. 
Rickey will point out, is that the great power house of the entire 
scheme is wholly in American territory, at the foot of Bamhart island; 
although the water itself passes through a portion of Canadian territory, 
the development takes place in the United States." 

If the "great power house of the entire scheme is wholly in American 
territory" it does not, on the face of it, appear that Canada would have 
any control whatever over the Company. 




O 



h-1 



H 




M 




B 




o 




CH 




p^ 


I>l 


"-^ 




^ 


^ 






^-^ 






-^ 


H 


g; 


O 


H 




CO 


> 


r^ 






^ 


5 




C-. 


•X' 


^ 

^ 


^^ 


h:) 


Q 


P^ 


« 


■SI 


fe 






'y^ 


« 


g; 


a 


<i 


t^ 


CM 


< 


S 


K^ 


o 


. — 


o 






K" 




2; 


k; 


Q 


o 


o 


"1 . 



o 

W 

o 



LONG SAULT POWER PROJECT 31 

Development of The great amount of power that can be developed 
Power a Factor at the site in the South Sault channel is sufficient induce- 
ment to a large corporation to construct such power works, even if there 
were no additional advantages to be obtained through further develop- 
ment in this vicinity. As has been pointed out in the earlier portion of 
this report, provision has been made to raise $1,550,000, which will be 
available for preliminary work connected with the proposed dam in 
the South Sault channel. It has also been stated that, if possible, this 
dam would be erected without securing any consent from Canada. If 
the Long Sault Company were able to erect such works in the South 
Sault, it would then be very difficult to carry on any general scheme of 
improvement of the river as a whole, unless enormous sums were paid 
for damages. As the works would be altogether within "American 
territory," expropriation would be impossible. 

The construction of the proposed works would be a great menace to 
the navigability of the St. Lawrence river and the Great Lakes system. 
The vested rights created by the erection of such works would render 
extremely difficult — if not impossible — ^the carrying on of works for the 
improvement and deepening of the St. Lawrence. When that time 
comes, such improvements should be made by Canada, or the United 
States, or both. In no event and in no degree should the control of 
the St. Lawi-ence be allowed to pass into the hands of private or cor- 
porate interests. 

Opinions Respecting Ice Conditions 

While the calculations and opinions of engineers are to be respected, 
nevertheless, when they are expressed by way of minimizing the pos- 
sible disastrous effects of damming the St. Lawrence, it is well to discount 
such opinions. The magnitude of the St. Lawrence river, and the tre- 
mendous forces latent in it, may act in ways as yet undiscerned by 
members of the engineering profession. One is reminded of the predic- 
tion of engineers with respect to the regimen of the lower Niagara 
river: how the power house of the Ontario Power Company was placed 
"above all possibility of being reached by flood water;" and, yet, 
after the power house was constructed, the water, when blocked by ice, 
rose in the lower river and flowed over the roof of the power house. 
A more recent and striking case of floods occurring which were wholly 
out of the reckoning of engineers, is to be found in the devastating 
inimdation in the state of Ohio, March, 1913. Nature does not permit 
herself to be harnessed without, frequently, making strong protests. 

Those who are favouring the construction of power works in the 
Long Sault rapids, have repeatedly stated that conditions in the river 



82 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

will be much improved by the construction of the works. They have 
stated that disastrous floods caused by ice jams, such as occurred in the 
years 1840, 1879, 1887, 1895, 1898, 1901 and 1905, will not be likely to 
recur. To use the words of Mr. Rickey :* 

" Ice conditions below the dams will be much improved, thus 
reducing danger from the annual ice and floods of Cornwall. The 
river above the dams will be kept free from ice jams, so that a 
repetition of the floods of 1887 and 1905 will not occur again." 

Mr. Rickey, however, elsewhere states, in effect, that in the absence 
of the proposed construction works of the Long Sault Company: 

" It is not at all improbable that a flood, whose effects will be 
far more disastrous than that of 1887, may occur." 

Factors Causing The South Sault channel has repeatedly been entirely 
Ice Jams blocked with ice. If the level in this channel were raised — 

as it would be by the dam — ^the ice would probably pile up on the west 
end of Long Sault island and be thrown over against the retaining banks 
of the Cornwall canal. The effect of such a catastrophe is beyond 
calculation. 

Mr. Rickey has stated with respect to ice jams: 

1. "That nearly all ice bridges between Groil island and the 
main shore were artificially formed by the riverside inhabitants. 

2. "That the 1887 flood, the worst on record, was started 
artificially." 

It seems clear, however, that to start an ice blockade it is not ne- 
cessary to swing a bay of ice out into the river. When a constant stream 
of floating ice is coming down and lodging against a dam, the surface ice 
will at times, collect in sufficient quantities to bridge the river and 
completely block it for miles up stream. The proposed Long Sault dams 
would answer all the requirements for ice-jam conditions now served by an 
ice bay which has been artificially caused to block the river. 

A Fallacious The advocates of the Long Sault dams have contended 

Argument ^ij^t natural phenomena have already been manifested in 

the St. Lawrence river, which phenomena are said to be a counterpart 
of those which would take place if the dams were in place. For example 
Mr. Rickey, says:* 

" It is a matter of history that the main river channel, north of 
Long Sault, never becomes congested with ice even when the back- 
water, caused by the lake St. Francis ice jam, obliterates the 
rapids, thereby creating conditions essentially the same as will be 
created by the proposed dams." 

* For Mr. Rickey's statements in full, see Appendix XXVI, page 260. 



LONG SAULT POWER PROJECT 33 

The great fallacy in this contention is this : Certain conditions exist 
in the St. Lawrence river; it is contended that, exceptional circumstances 
— such as an ice jam at lake St. Francis — may result in the same con- 
ditions as would occur if the dams were already in place. But, if the 
dams had already been in place, they would have constituted the initial 
point at which ice conditions would begin to manifest themselves. In 
other words, the effects of a back-water sufficiently high to "obliterate 
the rapids " might be created above the dams and with most disastrous 
results. 

Freeing River of Again, Mr. Rickey has stated that it will be possible and 
Ice Artificially feasible to keep the St. Lawrence river free from ice by 
artificial means. To quote: 

"The St. Lawrence River Power Company kept the South 
Sault channel open during the winters of 1903 to 1906 inclusive. 
Even the north-west winds caused practically all the ice in the 
river to pass down the channel. Before and after the above dates, 
no attempt was made to keep this channel open and every winter 
it was badly congested with ice jams. This shows conclusively 
that it is practicable to keep the river channels open, provided the 
work is undertaken with properly equipped crews. In like manner 
it will be possible to keep open the main river channel on each side 
of Croil island after the proposed dams are built, thereby removing 
all possibility of ice floods in Morrisburg for all future time." 

It would certainly not be advisable to increase the tendency to 
serious ice-jam conditions, hoping to compensate by removing the ice 
by artificial agency, especially when that agency introduces to so large 
an extent the personal element. Assuming Mr. Rickey's statements 
to be accurate, it is evident that any accident that suspended the opera- 
tions of his ice-breakers would result in the river being badly congested 
with ice jams. 

Effect of Dams The creation of large, comparatively still pools above 
on Ice Jams the various dams is an ideal condition making for the 
early freezing over of these bodies of water, and this, in turn, 
would very materially facilitate the formation of large ice jams 
early in the winter, so that if the dams were built, the jam con- 
ditions would start much earlier in the season, a much larger 
accumulation of ice would result, and the heavy falls of snow would 
have a longer period in which to collect and to contribute to the ice 
masses which make for flood conditions. 

Prof. H. T. Barnes, of McGill University, who has devoted several 
years to scientific study of the ice conditions in the St. Lawrence, views 



34 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

with apprehension the creation of any artificial obstruction at this 
point. Regarding it he says:* 

"The construction of the proposed dapisnow under considera- 
tion would merely carry the ice packs further back into the narrow 
parts of the river, where the first rush of frazil ice in the autumn 
would be unable to distribute over the wide area of lake St. 
Francis. It is true that the raising of the water level by the pro- 
posed dams would drown out the main rapids, biit this would in 
ao way affect the swift currents above, and would not preveat the 
winter's accumulation of frazil and anchor ice, over at least ten 
square miles of open water, from forming an ice pack back of the 
dams. In the spring, all this ice would be held back by the dams 
until it melted in April, and might seriously delay the opening of 
navigation through these waters. 

"No man can determine the serious consequences which might 
result from introducing these artificial dams in the narrow portions 
of the river with such an extent of open water above. Nature 
asserts herself with irresistible force when the struggle between water 
and ice takes place in so mighty a river as ihe St. Lawrence." 

Improving the In addition to the references that have been made by 
Tourist TrafSc ^j^g Commission of Conservation, and other organizations, 
respecting the preservation of the scenic beauty of the river, it is 
interesting to note that Mr. Rickey says : 

"Under the present conditions the Long Sault is seen by 
tourists during the short summer season of about four months, 
and then only for a very few minutes as they pass rapidly in a boat. 
Under the proposed conditions the scenery adjacent to the dams 
may be enjoyed by tourists throughout the year." 

It is not, on the face of it, apparent that the existence of the dams 
will so alter winter weather conditions as to render the rapids more at- 
tractive to tourists than they are at present. 



Physical Data 

In^his testimony before the Rivers and Harbours Committee, Mr. 
Rickey stated that the average discharge of the St. Lawrence river is 
about 255,000 cubic feet per second, at which stage about 48,500 second- 
feet, or 19 per cent, of the total flow, passes through the South 
Sault channel, 76 per cent, through the main channel between Long 
Sault and Barnhart islands, and 5 per cent through Little river, the 
channel between Barnhart and Sheek islands. 



*See appendix XXV, page 252, with map. 



32000 



30000 



28000 



26000 



24000 



22000 

u 

■I 20000 

5 vo_ 18000 

0: ' 16000 

^ 14000 



12000 



10000 



8000 



6000 



4000 



2000 



\ 




















\ 




















\ 


\ 
























^^ 
























-^ 






















^ 


\ 






















'\ 


\ 




















\ 




















\ 




























































































































PER 


CENTy 


i)G£- C 


F Tin 


IE OF 


AVER 


AGE y 


'EAR 





10 



iOO 



HoESE-PowEK Per Cent. Time Curve of St. Lawrence River at its Head. 
For Forty-Eight Years Period: 1860-1907, inclusive 



LONG SAULT POWER PROJECT 35 

The Long Sault Development Company maintains self-recording 
gauges at the following stations. The readings here given, taken on 
Oct. 1, 1911, at 12 o'clock noon, may be considered as typical of the 
St. Lawrence slope: 

Ogden island 223 .60 

Waddington 212 .40 

Bradford point 206.40' 

Head of Long Sault island (Delany id.) .... 201 .20 

Canal intake 198.50 

North side of Long Sault island 190 . 28 

Polly creek 169.70 

Mouth of Grass river 154 . 55 

Head of Grass river 161 . 90 

The change in level in the Little Sault channel from the head 
of Long Sault island to Polly creek would give, as per above table, a 
head of 31.9 feet. 

The highest water elevation yet recorded by the gauges at Brad- 
ford point was 209.9 on June 4th, 1912. The lowest water elevation 
at Bradford point was 205.8 on October 7th, 1911. 

The gauge elevations are referred to mean sea-level as determined 
by the United States engineers. The gauges are connected by lines of 
levels to bench mark No. 35, situated near the canal intake. 

For discharge data, formulse, etc., consult Report on the Regula- 
tion of lake Erie submitted by the International Waterways Commission.* 

CONCLtrSION 

The Commission of Conservation opposes the granting of any 
charter to dam the Long Sault, on the following grounds: 

(1) Inasmuch as the Ashburton treaty provides that " the channels 
in the river St. Lawrence on both sides" of Long Sault, Croil and Barn- 
hart islands "shall be equally free and open to the ships, vessels and 
boats" of Great Britain and of the United States, no constructions 
which would interfere with navigation in the slightest degree can be 
erected in any of said channels without the consent of Great Britain. 

(2) It is quite possible that serious damage woiild result from the 
construction of the works. Engineers have, it is true, given an opinion 
that there is no probability of such damage. On the other hand, the 



* See Report of the International Waterways Commission on the Regulation of 
Lake Erie, with a diBCUSsion of the Regulation of the Great Lakes System, together 
Trith Appendix, tables and plates, Ottawa, 1910. Also see list of reports, maps, etc., 
relating to the St. Lawrence River in Water-Powers of Canada, Commission 
of Conservation, Ottawa, 1911, p. 363 et seq. 



36 COMMISSION OF CONSKRVATION 

opinion of the residents along the shore and the most experienced 
navigators and obserTOrs is apparently almost unanimous in holding 
that the probability of serious damage is very strong. With all respect 
to the engineers who have given their opinions, it is submitted that the 
question is not an engineering problem and that no data exist for the 
formation of a reliable engineering opinion. No engineer can tell where 
or how ice will be formed when in our rigorous climate the flow of a 
mighty river is interfered with. It is a fact that slight interference has 
in former years caused great damag^^from floods and ice jams. The 
possible total stoppage of the flow of the river as a consequence of Hhs 
works contemplated is a contingency which cannot be said to be 
impossible or remote. Such a stoppage would cause enormous damage 
to private property and would imperil the Cornwall canal, which is an 
integral and essential part of the all-Canadian water route from lake 
Superior to the sea. 

It does not appear necessary to express an opinion as to, whether 
the weight of evidence or probability is in favour of the view expressed 
by the engineers or that expressed by the residents of tJtie locality who 
have intimate knowledge of the history of the river for many years 
past. The fact that there is any — even the slightest — difference of 
opinion is a sufficient reason for condemning the proposal. No risk 
whatever should be incurred in a matter of such vital importance. 

(3) The proposed diversion of water by the dam between the 
Long Sault island and Barnhart island would take from the main 
navigable channel between Barnhart island and the United States 
mainland about 50 per cent of its water. The effect of such a diversion 
of water from the navigable channel is impossible to estimate. It can, 
however, be stated with certainty that the navigability of the channel 
would not be improved by such diversion. 

(4) The construction of the dams in question will result in com- 
pelling navigation (other than by the Cornwall canal) to follow a new 
route known as the South Sault channel. Experienced navigators are 
of the opinion that this route will be much inferior to that now followed. 

(5) The time will undoubtedly arrive in the history of Canada 
when deeper navigation upon the St. Lawrence will require to be 
provided for by the Canadian Government. Should the works proposed 
by the St. Lawrence Power Company be constructed, the Government 
would no longer have a free hand in undertaking such an enterprise. 

The vested rights of the Company would require to be considered. 
Should the engineering plans adopted for improving and deepening 
navigation interfere with or damage the works of the Company, which 
is reasonably certain to be the case, then the Government would be 
under the necessity of expropriating such works and paying an enormous 



LONG SAULT POWER PROJECT 37 

sum by way of damages. Moreover, it is not clear that such expro- 
priation could be had on any terms. The international character of 
the works might prove an insuperable bar, in which case the Govern- 
ment would be without remedy, and the improvement of navigation 
could not be effected. 

(6) The proposed scheme of the St. Lawrence Power Company 
contemplates making use of the Canadian side of the river simply as a 
convenient landing place for a dam. A very slight examination of the 
plans of the Company is sufficient to make it clear that only a small 
portion of the contemplated expenditure will take place in Canada and 
only a Very small proportion of the total power developed, will be 
developed in Canada. 

(7) Looking at the whole scheme, it does not appear that any 
serious attempt can be made to show that Canadian requirements or 
Canadian interests are an appreciable factor in the plans of the Company. 
The plans contemplate the absolute monopolization of the whole power 
available from the rapids with a minimum consideration of Canadian 
interests. 

(8) No market exists at the present time upon the Canadian side 
for the power proposed to be developed, or for any appreciable portion 
thereof. When any large quantity of power is required in the territory 
tributary to the proposed works it can be otherwise provided. There is, 
within the radius of economic transmission, abundant power available 
for development in purely Canadian territory without interfering in 
any way with the St. Lawrence river. 

(9) Should the time come when further power is demanded by 
Canadian interests, and the placing of a dam across the St. Lawrence 
river is determined upon, one-half of the power to be generated thereby 
will belong of right to Canada and shoiild be permanently retained for 
Canadian use without any exception or qualification. 

(10) The suggestion that power can be generated on the American 
side, or generated on the Canadian side and exported to the United 
States, and that thereafter, when it is required in Canada the Company 
can be ordered to deprive its United States customers of the power and 
dehver it in Canada, is regarded as being entirely illusory. If the power is 
used in the United States, industries will be built up and vested interests 
created thereby, which it will be impossible to ignore. The attempt to 
enforce an order for the delivery of power on the Canadian side after 
it had for years been exported to, or used in, the United States would 
lead to serious difficulties. The case is not the same as if the Company 
and its works were wholly within Canada. If the Company desired to 
avoid or resist such an order, no means would exist of enforcing it 



38 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

without resorting to steps which would be a sure road to international 
complications. 

(11) Although not at present required for actual use, the power 
possibilities of the St. Lawrence at the Long Sault are very great, and 
the time will undoubtedly come when they will be of enormous value. 
The present proposition contemplates giving away this valuable asset, 
without any substantial consideration, to a foreign company for its 
private financial advantage. 

(12) The obvious conclusion from the facts above recited seems 
to be, that the plain duty of Canada is to maintain her rights of ownership 
and jurisdiction absolutely unimpaired and untrammelled. 





-'-*1 






w 




u 




1 — 1 




K 




EH 












r- 




a 




H 




1 '> 




^ 




o 








►^ W 




~ ji 
















^ Q 




J ^ 




"^ d 




-^0^ 




s « 




Lh H 






? 




><« 


-1 


1 


5g 




S M 


'4 




* ■> 


J a 


4A 


-^ Eh 


1 


'A 


-i 




'1 


-1 fe 


S 
" 


'A 




« o 


[| 


'^" 2^ 




>1 ^ 


1 


-^ Eh 


^H o 


1 


^ H 



\ 



£; o 



a 


ffi 


<lj 


m 


K 


P 


cH 


« 


S^ 


m 


W 






H 


uij 


ffi 


-1^ 


H 


;tf 




S 




<i 




H 




« 




B 




m 




m 




P 




o 




2; 








W 




o 




o 




►-1 





J .^>.. 



APPENDICES 



APPENDIX I 



ACT OF INCORPORATION 

Of the Long Sault Development Company, being Chapter 355 of 
THE Laws of the State of New York. This Act became Law 
ON Mat 23rd 1907, 3d. Rdg. 629, No. 626, 1043, 1137, 1647, 1678, 
Int. 541. 

AN ACT 

TO incorporate the Long Sault Development Company, and to 
authorize said company to construct and maintain dams, canals, 
power-houses and locks at or near Long Sault island, for the purpose 
of improving the navigation of the St. Lawrence river and developing 
power from the waters thereof, and to construct and maintain a bridge, 
and carry on the manufacture of commodities. 

The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and As- 
sembly, do enact as follows: 

Section 1. Michael H. Flaherty, Frank S. Smith, Henry H. Warren, 
Walter F. Willson and John C. Crapser, and all such persons as are or 
may hereafter be associated with them, and their successors, are hereby 
constituted a body corporate and politic by the name and style of the 
"Long Sault Development Company," for the purpose of erecting, 
constructing, maintaining, operating and using, in connection with the 
St. Lawrence river, a dam or dams, a canal or canals, a reservoir or 
reservoirs, and a power-house or power-houses, and works appur- 
tenant thereto, at or near Long Sault island, in the county of Saint 
Lawrence, and of erecting and constructing a lock or locks, and 
works appurtenant thereto, at or near the same place, all for the develop 
ment of electrical power and energy, and the permanent improvement 
of navigation on the St. Lawrence river at and above and below said 
place; and also of constructing and maintaining a bridge upon or in 
connection with said works, and of carrying on the manufacture of com- 
modities with the said power. 

2. Said corporation shall have power: 

(1) To have perpetual succession; 

(2) To have a common seal and alter the same at pleasure; 



40 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

(3) To acquire, by grant, gift, purchase, devise, bequest or other 
lawful means, and to hold and dispose of such property as its purpose 
shall require, subject to such limitations as may be prescribed by law; 

(4) To appoint such officers and agents as its business shall require, 
and to fix their compensation; 

(5) To make by-laws not inconsistent with any existing law, for the 
management of its property, the regulation of its affairs, the transfer of 
its stock, and the calling of meetings of its members; 

(6) To borrow money and contract debts, when necessary, for the 
transaction of its business or for the exercise of its corporate rights, 
privileges or franchises, or for any other lawful purpose of its incorpora- 
tion; and it may issue and dispose of its obligations for any amount so 
borrowed, and may mortgage its property and franchises to secure the 
payment of such obligations or of any debt contracted for said purpose, 
subject in all respects to the provisions of section two of the stock 
corporation law. 

(7) Said corporation shall have all the other powers, privileges and 
franchises now or hereafter conferred by the general, stock and business 
corporations laws of the state of New York. 

3. Said corporation shall have the right to erect, construct, main- 
tain, operate and use all such dam or dams, canal or canals, reservoir or 
reservoirs, gates, sluices, trunks, pipes, bulkhead piers, flumes, abut- 
ments, and other works appurtenant thereto, as may be proper or useful 
for the purpose of the development of water-power, and of electrical 
power and energy therefrom, at such point or points upon or adjacent 
to the south shore of the St. Lawrence river, near Long Sault island or 
Barnhart island, and upon the said islands, or either of them, and 
between said islands, and between said islands or either of them and the 
shores of the said river and Sheek island (but not across the international 
boundary line unless consented to by the Dominion of Canada) as may 
be selected by said corporation, and also in and upon so much of the said 
river and the bed thereof as lies to the south of the international bound- 
ary line, at or near Long Sault island or Barnhart island, either inde- 
pendently or in connection with like works now erected, or to be erected, 
in so much of said river and the bed thereof as lies to the north or Cana- 
dian side of said international boundary line, and upon and adjacent to 
the northerly shore of said river ; and to erect, construct, maintain, operate 
and use a power-house or power-houses, and conductors, cables, wires, 
insulators and other appliances in connection with the said works for the 
development of electrical power and energy; and also to take and use 
the waters of said river at and above the points of location of said works 
heretofore authorized, and to construct and maintain upon, over and in 
connection with said dam or dams and other works, a bridge or bridges 
across or partly across the St. Lawrence river, with the approaches 



LONG SAULT DEVELOPMENT GO'S CHARTER 41 

thereto, for the use of foot passengers, animals and vehicles, and to 
charge reasonable rates of toll for passage thereon; the said rights being 
granted upon the express condition that said corporation shall make just 
compensation to all persons injured by the exercise of the rights and 
privileges heretofore granted, and that said corporation shall also erect 
and construct a lock or locks as may be required by the United States of 
America, and shall provide electrical power and energy for the main- 
tenance, operation and use of said lock or locks, free of charge, and shall 
in all other respects perform, fulfil and abide by all and singular the 
conditions and provisions of this act, and also of any act of the Congress 
of the United States relating thereto, and also upon condition that the 
rights hereby granted shall never be so used as to impair or obstruct the 
navigation of the St. Lawrence river, but, on the contrary, that such 
navigation shall be preserved in as good condition as, if not better than, 
the same is at present, regard being always had to the amount of the 
natural flow of water in said river as affecting its navigability from time 
to time. 

4. After the Congress of the United States shall authorize the con- 
struction of dams, locks and canals hereby authorized and after the 
payment by said corporation into the treasury of the State of the fixed 
sum of ten thousand dollars the commissioners of the land office shall, 
upon application of said corporation, grant unto it the title and interest 
of the people of the State in and to lands under the waters of the St. 
Lawrence river to be covered or occupied by said works and locks and 
power-houses, provided, however, that any of the lands of the State 
which may be so conveyed to said corporation shall be forfeited 
and title thereto shall revert to the State unless the same are 
actually used by said corporation and covered by its dams, 
canals, reservoirs, gates, sluices, trunks, pipes^ bulkheads, piers, 
flumes, abutments or other works appertaining thereto, or are 
necessary to the enjoyment for said purposes of any lands so 
used or covered, within fifteen years from the conveyance thereof by 
the commissioners of the land office to said corporation under authority 
of this Act, and in consideration of the conveyance so made under the 
authority of this Act, as well as for the rights, and privileges hereby 
granted, the said corporation in addition to the payment aforesaid shall 
pay into the treasury of the State for the year nineteen hundred and ten 
the fixed sum of fifteen thousand dollars, and for the year nineteen 
hundred and eleven the fixed sum of twenty thousand dollars. For 
each year after nineteen hundred and eleven the said corporation shall 
pay at the following rates upon the average amount of electrical horse- 
power generated during such year under the authority of this Act, that 
is to say: Upon all amounts up to twenty-five thousand electrical 
horse-power, at the rate of seventy-five cents per horse-power; 



44 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

been paid to the State Treasurer; and upon any increase of said capital 
stock such tax upon such increase shall also be paid. 

8. The number of directors of said corporation shall be five. 
Said directors shall hold office for the term of one year after their elec- 
tion and until their successors are elected and qualified. Michael H. 
Flaherty, Frank S. Smith, Henry H. Warren, Walter F. Willson, and 
John C. Grapser shall be the directors of said corporation for the first 
year and until their successors are elected and qualified. The first 
election shall be held on the first Monday after the third Thursday of 
February, in the year nineteen hundred and eight. Any vacancy in 
the board of directors occurring before the first election shall be filled 
by vote of the remaining directors. The number of directors may be 
increased as provided by law. 

9. The said corporation shall begin the work of constructing its 
dam pursuant hereto within one year after the Congress of United States 
shall authorize the construction of dams, locks, and canals hereby 
authorized, and in case such construction shall not be so begun the grants, 
rights and privileges hereby granted may be forfeited. 

10. This Act, and all the terms, conditions and provisions thereof, 
shall apply to the successors and assigns of the incorporators named in 
the first section thereof. 

11. This Act shall take effect immediately. 



APPENDIX II 

OPINION 

By Hon. Thomas Carmody, Attorney General op the State of 
New York, Relative to the Constitutionality of the Charter 
OF THE Long Sault Development Co. Rendered to the Senate 
OF THE State, December 30, 1912 

I herewith submit my opinion to your honourable body, pursuant 
to your resolution of March 29, 1912, which is as follows : 

"Whereas, An act constituting chapter 355 of the Laws of 
1907, provides among other things that certain persons therein 
named shall be a corporation to be designated as the ' Long Sault 
Development Company'; and 

"Whereas, Such act further purports to convey to said 
corporation valuable and exclusive privileges and rights, and 
directs the conveyances to said corporation of certain lands belong- 
ing to the State imder the waters of the St. Lawrence river and 
referred to in said act; and 

"Whereas, It is claimed that said corporation is proceeding 
under such act to acquire piivate lands, and to secure the consent 
of the governments of the United States, and of the Dominion of 
Canada, confirming said act and the privileges assumed to be 
granted thereby; and 

" Whereas, It is further claimed that such act is imconstitus 
tional in that it assumes to convey exclusive rights and privilege- 
by special enactment, and further assumes to convey a portion of 
the forest preserve of the State which by the constitution is made 
inalienable on the part of the State; be it therefore 

Resolved, That the Attorney-General of the State is hereby 
requested to transmit to the Senate for its further consideration 
his written opinion as to whether such act as aforesaid contravenes 
the constitution of the State in any of the matters herein referred 
to, or in any other particulars; and if in his judgment it does, 
what, if any, present action or proceedings may be brought by the 
State to ascertain judicially such fact; and that such written 
opinion be ready for submission on the reconvening of the Senate 
in the year 1913, or at any time prior thereto if the same shall be 
convened in extraordinary session and prepared to receive the 
same. 



46 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

Substantial Provision of the Act 

Chapter 355 of the Laws of 1907 became a law on May 23, 1907' 
by the approval of the Governor. The act is entitled : 

"AN ACT to incorporate the Long Sault Development Com- 
pany, and to authorize said company to construct and maintain 
dams, canals, power-houses and locks at or near Long Sault island, 
for the purpose of improving the navigation of the St. Lawrence 
river and developing power from the waters thereof, and to con- 
struct and maintain a bridge, and carry on the manufacture of 
commodities." 

Section 1 constitutes the Long Sault Development Company a 
body corporate, for the purposes of 

"erecting, constructing, maintaining, operating and using in con- 
nection with the Saint Lawrence river, a dam or dams, a canal or 
canals, a reservoir or reservoirs and a power-house or power-houses, 
and works appertaining thereto at or near Long Sault island in 
the county of Saint Lawrence, and of erecting and constructing a 
lock or locks, and works appertaining thereto, at or near the same 
place, all for the development of electrical power and energy and 
the permanent improvement of navigation on the Saint Lawrence 
river at and above and below said place; and also of constructing 
and maintaining a bridge upon or in connection with said works 
and of carrying on the manufacture of commodities with the said 
power." 

Section 2 of the act confers upon the company, corporate powers 
usually possessed by corporations Ciganized under general laws and 
particularly authorizes it 

" (3) To acquire, by grant, gift, purchase, devise, bequest or 
other lawful means, and to hold and dispose of such property as its 
purpose shall require, subject to such limitations as may be pre- 
scribed by law;" 

Section 3 of the act provides that : 

"Said corporation shall have the right to erect, construct, 
maintain, operate and use all such dam or dams, canal or canals, 
reservoir or reservoirs, gates, sluices, tnmks, pipes, bulkheads, 
piers, flumes, abutments, and other works appurtenant thereto, 
as may be proper or useful for the purpose of the development of 
water-power, and of electrical-power and energy therefrom, at such 



UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF LONG SAULT DEV. GO'S CHARTER 47 

point or points upon or adjacent to the south shore of the Saint 
Lawrence river, near Long Sault island or Barnhart island, and 
upon the said islands, or either of them, and between said islands, 
and between said islands or either of them and the shores of the 
said river and Sheek island (but not across the international 
boimdary line unless consented to by the Dominion of Canada) , as 
may be selected by said corporation, and also in and upon so much 
of the said river and the bed thereof as lies to the south of the 
international boundary line, at or near Long Sault island or Barn- 
hart island, either independently or in connection with like 
works now erected, or to be erected, in so much of said river and the 
bed thereof aslies to the north or Canadian side of said international 
boundary line, and upon and adjacent to the northerly shore of 
said river; and to erect, construct, maintain, operate and use a 
power-house or power-houses, and conductors, cables, wires, 
insulators and other appliances in connection with the said works 
for the development of electrical power and energy; and also to 
take and use the waters of said river at and above the points of 
location of said works heretofore authorized, and to construct and 
maintain upon, over and in connection with said dam or dams and 
other works, a bridge or bridges across or partly across the Saint 
Lawrence river, with the approaches thereto, for the use of foot 
passengers, animals and vehicles, and to charge reasonable rates 
of toll for passage thereon; the said rights being granted upon the 
express condition that said corporation shall make just compensa- 
tion to all persons injured by the exercise of the rights and privileges 
heretofore granted, and that said corporation shall also erect and 
construct a lock or locks as may be required by the United States 
of America, and shall provide electrical power or energy for the 
maintenance, operation and use of said lock or locks, free of charge, 
and shall in all other respects perform, fulfill and abide by all and 
singular the conditions and provisions of this act, and also of any 
act of congress of the United States relating thereto, and also upon 
condition that the rights hereby granted shall never be so used as 
to impair or obstruct the navigation of the Saint Lawrence river, 
but, on the contrary, that such navigation shall be preserved in as 
good condition as, if not better than, the same is at present, 
regard being always had to the amount of the natural flow of water 
in said river as affecting its navigability from time to time." 

Section 4 of the act provides that after the United States shall 
have authorized the construction of dams, locks and canals authorized 
by section 3, and after the payment by said corporation into the treasury 
of the State of the fixed sum of $10,000, then "the Commissioners of 



48 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

the Land Office shall upon application of said corporation grant unto it 
the title and interest of the people of the State in and to lands under 
the waters of the Saint LaviTence river." These lands "to be covered 
or occupied by said works and locks and power-houses." 
The section then contains the proviso : 

" That any of the lands of the state which may be so conveyed 
to said corporation shall be forfeited and title thereto shall revert 
to the state unless the same are actually used by said corporation 
and covered by its dams, canals, reservoirs, gates, sluices, trunks, 
pipes, bulkheads, piers, flumes, abutments or other works apper- 
taining thereto, or are necessary to the enjoyment for said purposes 
of any lands so used or covered, vrithin fifteen years from the con- 
veyance thereof by the commissioners of the land office to said 
corporation imder authority of this act." 

Section 4 continues: 

"And in consideration of the conveyance so made under the 
authority of this act, as well as for the rights and privileges hereby 
granted, the said corporation in addition to the payment, aforesaid, 
shall pay into the treasury of the state for the year nineteen hundred 
and ten the fixed sum of fifteen thousand dollars, and for the year 
nineteen hundred and eleven the fixed sum of twenty thousand 
dollars. For each year after nineteen hundred and eleven the said 
corporation shall pay at the following rates upon the average 
amount of electrical horse-power generated during such year under 
the authority of this act, that is to say: Upon all amounts up to 
twenty-five thousand electrical horse-power, at the rate of seventy- 
five cents per horse-power; 

" Upon all amounts in excess of twenty-five thousand electrical 
horse-power and up to one hundred thousand electrical horse- 
power, at the rate of fifty cents per horse-power; upon all amounts 
in excess of one hundred thousand electrical horse-power, at the 
rate of twenty-five cents per horse-power. In case said corpora- 
tion shall generate or develop water-power as mechanical power, 
without transmitting the same into electrical power, then for so 
much of said water-power as shall be so generated or developed,' 
payment shall be made at the above mentioned rates per mechanical 
horse-power. 

In the ascertainment of the average electrical horse-power generated, 
section 4 prescribes the following rule: 

" In determining the average amount of electrical horse-power 
generated and the average amount of mechanical horse-power 
generated or developed in any year, for the purpose of determining 



UNCONSTITTJTIONALITY OF LONG SAULT DEV. GO'S CHARTER 49 

the amount to be paid to the state, no day nor hour during which 
the works of said company are not in substantial operation shall 
be included in the total time for which such average is to be 
determined as the average for the year." 

Provision is then made for such payments on or before February 
1st of each year and that the records and books of the said corporation 
shall be open to inspection by the State authorities, who shall also have 
power to prescribe the standard and character of the measuring instru- 
ments and devices and test the same. 

Disputes in regard to the amoimt payable are referred for settle- 
ment to the Court of Claims. 

Section 4 then provides: 

"In case the said corporation shall fail to pay any amount 
due hereunder, within sixty days after the same is payable as 
herein provided, in addition to any other remedies which may exist 
by law, the rights and privileges hereby granted may be forfeited." 
It is further provided : 

"The payments above specified are based upon the assump- 
tion that the said corporation imder the authority of this act, 
subject only to the lawful control of the United States govern- 
ment, may use for the purposes herein specified, at the places 
herein mentioned, all of the waters of the Saint Lawrence river 
south of the international boundary line, but in case said corpora- 
tion shall at any time be compelled to make any payment to the 
Dominion of Canada or the Province of Ontario for the use by said 
corporation of any portion of said water to generate power as 
authorized by this act, said corporation shall be entitled to an 
equitable readjustment of the rate of compensation to be paid to 
the state for that portion of the said water for the use of which 
said corporation shall be compelled to make payment to said 
Dominion or Province." 

Provision is made that such readjustment shaU be made by 
arbitrators and for their appointment, and that the decision of sucH 
arbitrators shall be final and binding upon the parties. 

Section 5 of the act gives the company the power to 

" Sell or convey all or any portion of its property and assets, 
and the franchises and rights appurtenant thereto, upon such terms 
as may be consented to as aforesaid, but subject always to all the 
conditions and provisions of this act." 

Section 6 makes the existence of the corporation perpetual. 

4 



50 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

Section 7 fixes the capital at $1,000,000, with shares of a par 
value of $100 each. It requires the corporation before commencing 
business to have $250,000 of the par value of the capital stock subscribed 
and paid for in cash, and requires that the organization tax provided 
by the General Laws of the State of New York be first paid to the State 
Treasurer. 

Section 8 fixes the number of directors of said corporation at five. 

Section 9 provides: 

"The said corporation shall begin the work of constructing 
its dam pursuant thereto within one year after the congress of 
United States shall authorize the construction of dams, locks and 
canals hereby authorized, and in case such construction shall 
not be so begun the grants, rights and privileges hereby granted 
may be forfeited." 

OPINION 

The act in question, chapter 355 of the Laws of 1907, contravenes 
section 18 of article III of the State Constitution. 

Section 18 of article III of the State Constitution is as follows: 

"The Legislature shall not pass a private or local bill in any 
of the following cases: * * * granting to any private corpora- 
tion, association or individual any exclusive privilege, immunity 
or franchise whatever." 

This provision of the State Constitution was not inserted imtil 
1874 and took effect January 1, 1875. I have been unable to find any 
decision of our courts since that time directly involving the question 
here presented, namely: does a grant by the Legislature to a private 
corporation of a right or privilege to dam a navigable stream and 
appropriate and utiUze the whole power therefrom contravene the above 
provision. 

The Act of 1907 is plainly a private and a local bill. 
It is a private biU in that it relates only to a particular corporation, 
organized for private gain, to be controlled by private stockholders. 

The Court of Appeals, in Economic Power & Construction Company 
V. The City of Buffalo, 195 N.Y. 286, held that every act incorporating 
a company for private gain and generally all acts relating to a single 
corporation are private acts. This act comes under the above definition 
and is, therefore, a private act. 

The courts define a local act as one which in its subject relates to 
but a portion of the people of the State or to their property, and may 
not, either in its subject, operation or immediate and necessary results, 



UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF LONG SAULT DEV. GO'S GHARTER 61 

affect the people of the State or their property in general. People v. 
Supervisors of Chautauqua, 43 N.Y. 10; Johnston v. Spicer, 107 N.Y. 
201; Astor v. Arcade Railroad Co., 113 N.Y. 93. 

This act comes clearly within the above definition and is, therefore, 
a local act, within the meaning of section 18, article III of the 
Constitution. 

It remains to be determined whether the rights and privileges 
granted are exclusive, within the meaning of the Constitution. 

By section 3 of the act in question, the Long Sault Development 
Company is given the right " to erect, construct, maintain, operate and 
use such dam or dams, canal or canals, reservoir or reservoirs, gates 
sluices, trunks, pipes, bulkheads, piers, flumes, abutments and other 
works appurtenant thereto, as may be proper or useful for the purpose 
of the development of water-power and of electrical power and energy 
therefrom, at such point or points upon or adjacent to the south shore 
of the St. Lawrence river, near Long Sault island or Barnhart island, 
and upon the said islands, or either of them, and between said islands, 
and between said islands or either of them and the shores of the said 
river and Sheek island (but not across the international boundary line 
unless consented to by the Dominion of Canada), as may be selected by 
said corporation, and also in and upon so much of the said river and the 
bed thereof as lies to the south of the international boundary line, at 
or near Long Sault island or Barnhart island, either independently 
or in connection with like works now erected, or to be erected, in so 
much of said river and the bed thereof as lies to the north or Canadian 
side of said international boundary line, and upon and adjacent to 
the northerly shore of said river; and to erect, construct, maintain, 
operate and use a power-house or power-houses, and conductors, 
cables, wires, insulators and other appliances in connection with the 
said works for the development of electrical power and energy; and 
also to take and use the waters of said river at and above the points 
of location of said works heretofore authorized." 

Stronger or more comprehensive or more definite language could 
not be used by the Legislature in conferring upon the company the right, 
power and privilege of controlling, for the purpose of electrical power 
and energy, the waters of the St. Lawrence river at this point. 

It might be argued, were the company limited to the use and 
development of the water-power in and about Long Sault island, that 
the privilege granted is not exclusive, but when it is considered that 
the company is given the right to develop water-power, at and above 
said place, the conclusion is inevitable that an exclusive privilege is 
granted, the limitations of which, in respect to location, are not defined 
and may be asserted by the company to prevent all others from enjoying 



52 ' COMMISSION OF CX)NSERVATION 

a similar privilege, not only at, but above Long Sault island. 
How far above is not provided. 

Authority is likewise conferred upon the corporation to erect all 
structures that it may deem proper or useful for any of the purposes 
described, at any points on the south shore or the north shore of the 
St. Lawrence river, upon any of the three islands named, or between 
the islands or in the bed of the river, either independently or in connec- 
tion with like works now erected, or to be erected, in so much of said 
river and the bed thereof as lies to the north or Canadian side of said 
international boimdary line, and upon and adjacent to the northerly 
shore of said river. 

The act, therefore, not only grants to the corporation the exclusive 
right to develop and utilize all the water-power in and around Long 
Sault island, but also contemplates a more comprehensive, general and 
exclusive control -of the waters of the St. Lawrence river at and near that 
vicinity, by constructing, independently or in connection with works 
at present existing or to be hereafter constructed on the Canadian side 
of the river. If the Long Sault Development Company is able, either 
through connections with a company or companies on the Canadian 
side, or by independent action, to obtain a similar grant of power on 
the Canadian side, there can be little question about the exclusive nature 
of the privileges and power it would thereby be permitted to exercise. 

In addition to all this, it is important to note that the power 
granted is perpetual. 

In view of the language above quoted and in the light of all of the 
facts at hand, the conclusion seems irresistible that the Legislature of 
1907 intended and endeavored to grant to the Long Sault Development 
Company the exclusive right, either independently or in connection 
with other corporation or corporations, to control all of the water-power 
that could be generated at that place in the St. Lawrence river and 
within a vague and undefined area "above that poiat," not only for 
the present generation, but in perpetuity. 

Under this grant, if valid, succeeding Legislatures are prevented 
from granting privileges to any individual or corporation to utilize any 
of the water-power at the Long Sault rapids. It may also be claimed 
by the Long Sault Development Company that, because of its right to 
utilize the water above Long Sault island, no grant can be made by the 
Legislature, at least within a reasonable distance above the point in 
question, without impairing the charter of the Long Sault Development 
Company. 

The company might also maintain that any structure hereafter 
authorized, above or below the location in question, which would in 
any wise affect the hydraulic head or lessen in any degree the efficiency 



UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OP LONG SAULT DEV. GO'S CHARTER 53 

of any of the structures of the Long Sault Development Company, 
would financially damage, and thereby impair the exclusive rights, 
powers and privileges which the Long Sault Development Company 
received from the Legislature. 

I believe that section 18 of article III of the Constitution was 
adopted for the Very purpose of preventing such grants as this. At 
the time when this amendment was adopted in 1874, nearly all of the 
available power sites within the State had been granted by the Legis- 
lature by special acts, with scarcely any revenue to the State. 

The preservation to future generations of the water-power not 
theretofore granted, and which was practically located in the two 
border streams, the Niagara and the St. Lawrence, was a vital, essential 
and important duty. By section 18 of article III the people undertook 
to put an end to the granting of these exclusive privileges, and it is not 
unreasonable that they had in mind the undeveloped water-power of 
these two great streams. In any event, it was plainly declared in that 
provision that no exclusive privilege, immimity or franchise should be 
thereafter granted by the Legislature. 

The charter in question plainly violates this provision, when we 
consider the causes that led to the adoption of, and the purpose sought 
to be obtained by this amendment. 

There are many decisions of the courts interpreting this language 
of the Constitution, but none that I have been able to find which 
determine this question contrary to the conclusion which I have reached. 

The terms of the Constitution are so plain, simple and compre- 
hensive as to leave little room for construction. Nothing can be added 
to or taken from the language employed to make more plain the object 
aimed at. That object, as provided by the language of the provision, 
and as uniformly interpreted by the courts, is twofold : 1. To prevent 
monopoly; 2 To leave open competition. 

Keeping these objects in view, there is to my mind little difficulty 
in applying the constitutional mandate to any given state of facts. 

It is urged, upon the authority of Matter of Application of Union 
Ferry Company, 98 N.Y. 139, that a privilege, immunity or franchiee 
is not exclusive within this provision of the Constitution, which does 
not, by its terms, prohibit the enjoyment of a similar privilege, im- 
munity or franchise by someone other than the grantee. This is founded 
upon the language of the court in that case, to be found at page 153, 
which is as follows : 

"The exclusiveness prohibited is one which is created by the 
terms of the grant, not that which results from the nature of the 
property or right granted." 



54 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

In that case the court was considering an act of the Legislature 
passed in 1882, entitled "An act to provide additional ferry slips and 
facilities in New York city for the ferries running between Whitehall 
street in the city of New York and Brooklyn." At page 148 the court 
said: 

" The whole frame and context of the act are consistent with 
the view that its object was not to grant any privilege or franchise 
to the Union Ferry Company as a corporation, but, as stated in the 
title of the act, to add to the ferry slips and facilities of the particular 
ferry which the company named was, at the time, operating." 

The court further held, in sustaining the constitutionality of that 
act, that the additional facilities granted by the act would increase the 
capacity, not only of the grantee, but of all future lessees of the ferry, 
to meet the wants of the public, and that those increased facilities 
would be enjoyed by the grantee only under its lease from the city, and 
would terminate with the lease and pass to succeeding lessees, and that 
the property could not be used for any purpose except the exercise of 
the ferry franchise granted by the city, and in whose hands that 
franchise might be from time to time. 

The court placed particular emphasis upon the fact that the 
privilege was not exclusive in respect to the character of the rights 
granted, nor indefinite in respect to the time of its enjoyment, and 
pointed out as exempting the statute from the constitutional inhibition, 
that the right granted, even while enjoyed by the Union Ferry Com- 
pany could also be enjoyed by other companies and at the termination 
of the lease of the Union Ferry Company, the particular right granted 
to that company would pass to its lessee. 

The facts of this case, it will be seen, immediately take it outside 
of the facts in the Long Sault case. The reasoning of the court in the 
Union Ferry Company case is not antagonistic to the contention that 
an exclusive privilege was granted to the Long Sault Development 
Company. 

At page 151 the court cites cases of exclusive privileges condenmed 
by this provision of the Constitution, among them the Gajoiga Bridge 
Company v. Magee, 2 Page 116, in which case the charter of the Cayuga 
Bridge Company provided that it should not be lawful to erect any 
bridge or estabHsh any ferry within three miles of the place where the 
bridge of the company should be erected, or to cross the river within 
three miles of the bridge without paying toll. 

If we apply that doctrine to this case it condemns the charter. 
While the act does not expressly provide that no other company shall 
enjoy the privileges of the Long Sault Development Company within 



UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF LONG SAULT DEV. GO'S CHARTER 66 

the area covered by the grant, yet the terms of the grant itself make it 
impossible that any other grant could be made by the State, or that any 
other company or any other individual, even the present riparian owners, 
could utilize the water for power purposes in that portion of the river. 

I can see no distinction in principle between the provisions of an 
act of the Legislature which expressly provide that there shall be no 
competition within a given area, and the provisions of an act which 
make it impossible that there should be. To hold that a different 
principle applies is to give an absurd construction to this most vital 
constitutional principle. Certain it is that the Union Ferry Company 
case is not authority for any such contention. 

That case further cites, as an instance of an exclusive privilege, 
the decision of the Court in Mohawk Bridge Company v. U. & S. R. R. 
Co., 6 Page 554. In that case the Mohawk Bridge Company received 
a charter to cross the Mohawk. The charter prohibited ferries crossing 
the river one mile above and one mile below. 

Suppose in that case the Legislature, instead of providing that 
no other ferries should cross one mile above or one mile below, had 
made a grant to the Mohawk Bridge Company of the waters of the 
Mohawk and the bed of the stream, one mile above and one mile below. 
It is plain that such a grant would as effectively prevent other ferries 
from crossing within that area as if the statute expressly so provided. 

I am well aware that, in the Union Ferry Company case, the 
Qourt of Appeals announced the principle that the right granted is not 
exclusive simply because it is impossible that any other person or 
corporation should enjoy that right, holding that, where it is important 
to the public interest that a privilege should be exercised by someone, 
the State must necessarily have authority to select the grantee, and that 
in such a case the exclusiveness is not prqduced by the grant, but results 
from the nature of the thing granted. 

That doctrine cannot be so extended as to protect a grant which, 
although in terms not exclusive, yet in addition to the privilege 
granted, grants other rights and privileges and properties which, upon 
the face of the act itself, make the privilege exclusive. 

The Court instances, as supporting this construction, grants of 
charters to toll bridge companies, grants of land to railroad companies 
for depots, car-yards, etc. These rights, of course, are to a certain 
extent exclusive, but the grant of a right to build a toll bridge is based 
upon an obligation on the part of the company to serve the public by 
improving the highway over which toll is taken. The right granted is 
in return for a public service rendered, while the rights granted to rail- 
road companies to acquire depots, car-yards, etc., are necessary for the 
enjoyment of the franchise given to the companies, and that brings the 



56 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

case within an entirely different principle. In b^oth these cases the use 
is a public one, and essential for the purpose of enjoying the charter 
granted by the State, and it is within the power of the Legislature to 
determine the necessity of the grant, and when it so determines, keeping 
within the line so clearly marked out by the court in the Union Ferry 
Company case, the grant is not violative of the Constitution. 

The grant made to the Long Sault Development Company is not 
within the protection of these principles. It is exclusive within a certain 
undefined area. The powers granted are not in the interest of the public, 
and the important ones, such as the grant of the title to the bed of the 
river, are not esbential to the enjoyment of the privilege of developing 
a water-power and electrical energy. It prevents competition; it 
creates a monopoly in as clear and emphatic terms as could possibly 
be used by the Legislature. 

I think it is clear, therefore, that it violates section 18 of article III 
of the Constitution of the State of New York. 

The act in question violates section 7 of article VII of the State Con- 
stitution, which provides that the lands of the State now owned or hereafter 
acquired, constituting the Forest Preserve, as now fixed by law, shall be 
forever kept as wild forest lands and shall not be leased, sold or exchanged 
or taken by any corporation, public or private. 

The bed of the St. Lawrence river is within the boundaries of the 
coimty of St. Lawrence. Chapter 332 of the Laws of 1893 (article VI, 
chapter 43, of the General Laws) provides: 

"Section 100. Forest Preserve. The forest preserve shall 
include the lands now owned or hereafter acquired by the State 
within the counties of * * * St. Lawrence, * * * except 
" 1. Lands within the limits of any village or city and 
"2. Lands, not wild lands, acquired by the State on fore- 
closure of mortagages made to the commissioners for loaning 
certain moneys of the United States usually called the United 
States deposit fund." 

This statute was in force when the present constitution was adopted, 
which went into effect January 1, 1895, and contained the following 
clause: 

"Article VII, section 7. The lands of the State, now owned 
[^i' or hereafter acquired, constituting the forest preserve as now fixed 
by law, shall be forever kept as wUd forest lands. They shall not 
be leased, sold or exchanged, or be taken by any corporation, 
public or private, nor shall the timber thereon be sold, removed 
or destroyed." 



UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF LONG SAULT DEV. GO'S CHARTER 67 

This provision of the Constitution, read in connection with the 
provisions of the statute then in force, leads inevitably to the conclusion 
that the lands in question are within the forest preserve and may not 
be alienated. The Court of Appeals in People v. Fisher, 190 N.Y. 480, 
in considering what are forest preserve lands uses the following 
language : 

" The language of the statute thus specifying the lands which 
are included within the forest preserve is clear and definite and does 
not in itself require construction. Its plain and positive language 
is made even more certain by the fact that some exceptions are 
stated therein." 

The bed of the St. Lawrence river covered by the grant in question, 
being within the coimty of St. Lawrence and the State of New York is 
land owned by the State, constituting the Forest Preserve as defined 
by chapter 332 of the Laws of 1893. 

There is no dispute that the land in question is so located, other- 
wise the Legislature of the State of New York could not grant title to 
these lands, as it undertook to do in the grant to the Long Saiilt 
Development Company. 

My attention has been called to the very able brief of Henry W. 
Taft, Esq., in respect to the constitutionality of the charter of the 
Long Saxilt Development Company in which he argues at length, and 
with much force, that the lands in question were not intended to be 
included within the definition of the Forest Preserve, and therefore, 
are not within the inhibition of article VII of section 7 of the 
Constitution. 

I am imable to follow his reasoning and to give the language of 
the statute and the language of the Constitution any other than its 
plain and natural meaning. Nothing is left open for construction. I 
do not see how the statute defining the Forest Preserve could use more 
apt language in including the waters imder the St. Lawrence river than 
it has used; nor how the constitutional convention could have more 
clearly expressed the policy of the State against alienating these lands. 

The act of 1907 is a private bill which embraces more than one subject 
and is defective and erroneous in its title. 

Article III, section 16, of the State Constitution provides that: 

" No private or local bill, which may be passed by the Legis- 
lature, shall embrace more than one subject, and that shall be 
expressed in the title." 

The subjects embraced in the bill in question are as follows: 
1. The creation of the corporation. 



68 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

2. The construction, maintenance and operation of construction 
at or near Long Sault island. 

3. The development of power from the waters of the St. Lawrence. 

4. Constructing and maintaining a bridge. 

5. The manufacturing of commodities. 

6. The levying and taking of tolls. 

7. The erection of transmission appliances. 

8. The granting of the title to the bed of the St. Lawrence river 
to the corporation. 

9. The creation of an exclusive right in perpetuity, to the use of 
all the water-power in the Long Sault rapids. 

10. The provision for alleged reasonable and proper remunera- 
tion to the State for such exclusive privileges. 

Members of the Legislature from an examination of the title of 
this bill would not expect to find such extraordinary and exclusive 
grants as contained therein. The title of the bill does not indicate that 
the right to take toll is given to the company; nor that the title to the 
bed of the St. Lawrence river is to be conveyed to the corporation. 
Development of water-power ia the river is readily accomplished without 
an appropriation or occupancy of the bed of the stream. The title of 
the bill does not indicate that the charter granted is perpetual. The 
same criticism applies in respect to the other provisions of the bill 
pointed out above. 

The Court of Appeals, in Goxe v. The State, 144 N.Y. 396, declared 
imconstitutional, as violative of the provisions of the Constitution we 
are here considering, an act entitled: "An act to authorize the drainage 
of marsh lands" which granted privileges of an important character; 
constituted a corporation, to which it gave power to reclaim and drain, 
from time to time, wet or overflowed lands and tide-water marshes on or 
adjacent to Staten island and Long island. Power was also given to 
enter upon all lands and waters for the purpose of making surveys and 
to use and own the right and title of the State in and to all the lands 
imder water that may lie withia or between said dykes and the present 
shore line, upon the payment to the treasurer of the State of such sum 
of money as should be determined by a commission to be appointed by 
the Governor, to be a fair value of such lands under water and belonging 
to the State. The Court of Appeals said at page 408, in speaking of 
this: 

"It created a private corporation and its operations affected 
four counties in the State. The subjects embraced in it were the 
creation of the corporation; the authority to drain and reclaim 
tide-water marsh lands; to levy and collect assessments; to 
exercise the power of eminent domain and the grant of lands 



UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF LONG SAULT DEV. GO'S GHARTER 69 

belonging to the state. We have seen that the purpose of the act, 
as expressed in the title, was the authority to 'drain marsh lands.' 
Without inquiring whether any of these subjects are germane to, 
or so connected with the one expressed in the title as to escape the 
objection, it is quite clear that no citizen or member of the Legis- 
lature would expect to find such an extraordinary grant from the 
State of lands under water in the body of a bill with such a title, 
and that is a fair test of the question." 

The act of the Legislature condemned by the court in the above 
case was not more clearly violative of the provision of the Constitution 
under consideration than the act incorporating the Long Sault Develop- 
ment Company. Nothing in the title, as I have before stated, indicates 
that the company is to become the owner of land under water; is to be 
permitted, in connection with other companies or acting independently, 
to bridge the St. Lawrence at that point; to have exclusive control in 
perpetuity of the waters in the vicinity of Long Sault island and above 
and below it; to charge toll, and to do the other numerous acts which 
by the terms of the statute, it is permitted to do. For instance, the 
heading provides that one of the purposes of the act is "to improve 
navigation in the St. Lawrence," while there is nothing in the act to 
require the company to improve navigation, or to do anything more 
than is necessary to accomplish the purposes of its corporate existence, 
provided the navigation of the St. Lawrence is not injured. Many 
aflSrmative acts are to be performed by the company, every one in aid 
of its corporate purposes, not one for the improvement of navigation. 

I beUeve, therefore, that this bill violates section 16 of article III 
of the Constitution of the State. 

The act is invalid and inoperative so far as it provides for the aliena- 
tion by the State of title to the lands in the bed of the St. Lawrence. 

I think it is within the spirit of the resolution that I should also 
call the attention of your honourable body to the fact that the act in 
question is in excess of the power of the Legislature — in undertaking 
to divest the people of the State of the title to the lands under the St. 
Lawrence. 

The act in question provides that after Congress shall authorize 
the construction of the dams, locks and canals authorized by the act, 
and after the payment by said corporation into the treasury of the State 
of the fixed sum of 110,000, the Commissioners of the Land Office shall, 
upon application of said corporation, grant unto it the title and interest 
of the people of the State in and to the lands under the waters of the St. 
Lawrence river,, to be covered or occupied by said works and locks and 
power-houses, etc. 



60 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

Provision is herein made for the complete surrenderiag of the title 
of the people of the State to the company, upon its complying with the 
terms of the act. This, neither the Legislature nor the Board of Land 
Commissioners has power to do. 

The title of the State of New York to lands under navigable waters is a 
sovereign right rather than a proprietary title. 

The State holds such lands in trust for the benefit of the public 
and that trust the State is powerless to divest itself of. This doctrine 
has been clearly announced whenever the question has been before the 
courts, both in State and in Federal tribunals, and is not open to doubt. 
In the case of Goxe v. The State, 144 N.Y. 396, a case very similar to 
this, the court announced this principle in the following language : 

"The question is governed ia this State by the rules of common 
law, modified in some respects by statute and adapted by the courts 
to such changes of conditions as existed here. That the dominion 
and ownership of such lands (under navigable streams) is in the 
sovereign for the benefit of the public has long been settled. Such 
dominion and ownership of property generally implies the power 
of absolute disposition, but with respect to the land xmder navi- 
gable or tide waters an important limitation has been engrafted 
upon this power from the nature of the title. The title of the State 
to the sea-coast and the shores of tidal rivers is different from the 
fee simple which an individual holds to an estate in lands. It is 
not a proprietary, but a sovereign right, and it has been frequently 
said that a trust is engrafted upon this title for the benefit of the 
public of which the State is powerless to divest itself." 
The same doctrine is announced in People v. N.Y. & S.I. Ferry Co., 
68 N.Y. 71, and numerous other cases. 

The United States Supreme Court states the same doctrine in 
Illinois Central R.R. Co. v. Illinois, 146 U.S. 387. The court was there 
consideriag the validity of an act of the Illinois State Legislature, 
repealing a former act of that Legislature, which former act imdertook 
to grant to the Illinois Central Railroad Company certain lands under 
the waters of lake Michigan. Upon that point the court said : 

"The State holds the title to the lands under the navigable 
waters in trust for the people of the State that they may enjoy 
the navigation of the waters, carry on commerce over them and have 
liberty of fishing therein, freed from the obstruction or interference 
of private parties. * * * The control of the State for the pur- 
poses of the trust can never be lost except as to such parcels as are 
used in promoting the interest of the public thereon or can be 
disposed of without any substantial impairment of the public 
interest in the lands and waters remaining. * * * 



UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF LONG SAULT DEV. GO'S GHARTER 61 

"The State can no more abdicate its trust over property in 
which the whole people are interested, like navigable waters and 
soils under them, so as to leave them entirely under the use and 
control of private parties except in the instance of parcels men- 
tioned for the improvement of the navigation and use of the waters, 
or when parcels can be disposed of without impairment of the 
public interest in what remains, than it can abdicate its police 
powers in the administration of government and the preservation 
of the peace." 

There are numerous other cases in the United States court holding 
the same principle. 

The title to this land is not necessary for the enjoyment by the 
company of all of the power incident to the development of water- and 
electrical power at that point. It is not a grant for any public use or 
in which the public at large is interested, or by which the public is 
benefitted. It clearly, therefore, contravenes the very nature of the 
State's sovereign control in this respect. 

It may be argued that this is not important at present, in that 
it does not arise until Congress has acted; and also, that the powers 
granted to the company, being capable of full enjoyment without the 
grant of the title to the bed of the stream, that therefore, to that extent 
the act may be sustained. As the court said in the Goxe case: 

"The various provisions of the act are so mingled together 
and dependent upon each other, that it is not clear that any of 
them can stand independently." 

I believe, therefore, that this act should be condemned also, 
because of the provision which provides for the grant of title in the 
company of the bed of the St. Lawrence river at the point in question. 

I believe, also, that this grant which is in excess of the power of 
the Legislature does not constitute an obligation on the part of the 
State toward the company, which is beyond the power of revocation by 
a subsequent Legislature. 

THE REMEDY 

The resolution further requests an opinion whether or not any present 
action or proceedings may be brought by the State to ascertain judicially 
whether the act in question contravenes the ConstitvMon. 

The grant made is ineffective until Congress shall authorize the 
construction of the dams, locks and canals authorized by the act. This 
is conceded by the act itself and is necessarily so, for the reason that 



62 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

the St. Lawrence is a national boundary, is a navigable river and is, 
aside from regtilation by treaty between this government and Canada, 
subject to control for purposes of navigation and military defense by 
the United States government and Canada to the extent of their 
respective ownerships. In other words, the Federal control of the St. 
Lawrence river to the national boundary line is paramount to the 
control by the State for the purposes of navigation and military defense 
only. I believe it to be the law that the State cannot make a grant of 
a navigable river except subject to this paramount right of the Federal 
government, which right can only be enjoyed for the purpose of navi- 
gation and military defense. 

Until, therefore, the Federal government, in conjunction with the 
Canadian government, or independently, shall recognize this grant as 
not interfering with the Federal use and control of the waters of the 
river at this point, the grant does not become effective. No legal pro- 
ceedings, therefore, are necessary and it is not clear that any can be 
maintained in the courts to determine the constitutionality of that 
grant, especially as no power of privilege can be exercised by the grantee 
concededly until the Federal government, through Congress, has 
authorized the construction of dams, locks and canals as authorized by 
the act. I believe, however, that the Legislature has power in this case 
either to repeal the act or to direct the Attorney-General to bring an 
action to procure a judgment vacating and annulliug the act of incor- 
poration. The latter power of the Legislature can be exercised only if 
the Legislature reaches the conclusion that the act was procured by 
fraudulent suggestion or the concealment of a material fact made by 
or with the knowledge and consent of the persons, or any of them, 
incorporated. (Section 130, General Corporation Law). 

The power of the Legislature to repeal an act passed by a former 
Legislature, when deemed in conflict with the Constitution, I think is 
imquestioned. It has been exercised in the past by the Legislature 
with the approval of the court. Chapter 257 of the Laws of 1875 
repealed a grant of land under water made by a previous Legislature. 
This act was before the court in Coxe v. The State, 144 N.Y. 391. At 
page 403 the court discusses the terms of the repealing act and assumes 
that it was within the legislative power. In that case no question was 
made even by the corporation affected of the power of the Legislature 
to repeal the grant. In Illinois Central Railroad Company against 
Illinois, 146 U.S. Reports, 387, the United States Siipreme Court held 
valid and effective an act of the Legislature of the State of Illinois 
repealing an act of a former Legislature undertaking to grant to the 
Illinois Central Railroad Company the right and title of the State of 
Illinois in and to the submerged lands constituting the bed of lake 
Michigan and lying east of the tracks and breakwater of the Illinois 



TTNGONSTITUTIONALITY OF LONG SAULT DEV. GO'S CHARTER 63 

Central Railroad for the distance of one mile. The court in that case 
held the principle that is contended for in this opinion, that this grant 
exceeded the power of the Legislature in that State could not alienate 
to a corporation its ownership and control of lands under navigable 
waters but held them in trust for the people, and that to that extent 
the act of the Legislature was invalid and the repealing act was valid 
and effective. 

CONCLUSION 

It is my opinion, therefore, that the powers and privileges granted 
the Long Sault Development Company by chapter 355 of the Laws of 
1907 was an invalid and imauthorized grant for the reasons: 

1. That the act in question is unconstitutional in that it con- 
travenes section 18 of article III of the State Constitution, which pro- 
vides that the Legislature shall not pass a private or local bill granting 
to any private corporation, association or individual any exclusive 
privilege, immunity or franchise whatever. This bill is private and 
local and grants an exclusive privilege, as contemplated by section 18 
of article III of the Constitution. 

2. It violates section 7 of article VII of the State Constitution, 
which provides that the lands of the State now owned or hereafter 
acquired, constituting the Forest Preserve, as now fixed by law, shall 
be forever kept as wild forest lands, and shall not be leased, sold or 
exchanged, or taken by any corporation, public or private. 

The bed of the St. Lawrence river, which, by the act in question, 
is directed to be conveyed to the Long Sault Development Company, 
is owned by the State and was so owned at the time the provision of the 
Constitution was adopted, and was included within the Forest Preserve, 
as defined by section 100 of chapter 332 of the Laws of 1893, describing 
the lands included within the State Forest Preserve. 

3. The act in question is a private bill and embraces more than 
one subject, and is, therefore, in violation of article III, section 16, of 
the State Constitution, which provides that no private or local bill 
which may be passed by the Legislatiu'e shall embrace more than one 
subject, and that shall be expressed in its title. 

4. The act is invalid as being in excess of the powers of the 
Legislature, in that it provides for the alienation by the State to the 
Long Sault Development Company of title to the lands in the bed of 
the St. Lawrence river. The title of the State in these lands is a 
sovereign right, rather than a proprietary title. It is inconsistent with 
that right, which must be exercised for the benefit of the whole people, 
that the title to the bed of a navigable stream should be granted in fee 
to a private corporation. 



64 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

I do not deem it within the scope of the resolution that I should 
call the attention of your honourable body to the great disparity between 
the value of the rights and privileges imdertaken to be granted to the 
Long Sault Development Company, and the revenue therefrom reserved 
to the State. While that is not the least striking provision of this most 
remarkable grant, yet it is a question of policy and of economy which 
it is competent for the Legislature to determine, and is not I deem it, 
a question upon which the Legislature desires or needs my opinion. 

All of which is respectfully submitted, 

THOMAS GARMODY 

A ttorney-General 

To the Honourable the Senate of the State of New York 
Dated: December 30, 1912 




APPENDIX III (a) 

ACT TO REPEAL 

The Act of Incorporation of the Long Satjlt Development 
Company — Signed by the Governor of the State op New 
York, May 8, 1913 

LAWS OF NEW YORK— By Authority 

Chap. 452 

AN Act to repeal chapter three hundred and J5f ty-five of the laws of 
nineteen hundred and seven, entitled "An Act to incorporate 
the Long Sault Development Company, and to authorize said 
company to construct and maintain dams, canals, power-houses and 
locks at or near Long Sault island, for the purpose of improving the 
navigation of the St. Lawrence river and developing power from the 
waters thereof, and to construct and maintain a bridge, and carry on 
the manufacture ot commodities," providing for the repayment to such 
company of certain moneys paid by it under such act and making an 
appropriation therefor. 

The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and 
Assembly, do enact as follows. • 

Section 1. Chapter three hundred and fifty-five of the laws of 
nineteen himdred and seven, entitled "An Act to incorporate the Long 
Sault Development Company, and to authorize said company to con- 
struct and maintain dams, canals, power-houses and locks at or near 
Long Sault island, for the purpose of improving the navigation of the 
St. Lawrence river and developing power from the waters thereof, and 
to construct and maintain a bridge, and carry on the manufacture of 
commodities," is hereby repealed, upon the following groimds: 

First. That chapter three hundred and fifty-five of the laws of 
nineteen himdred and seven is unconstitutional in that it contravenes 
section eighteen of article three of the State Constitution, which pro- 
vides that the Legislature shall not pass a private or local bill granting 
to any private corporation, association or individual any exclusive 
privilege, immunity or franchise whatever. 

Second. That the said act is unconstitutional in that it con- 
travenes section seven of article seven of the State Constitution, which 
provides that the lands of the State now owned or hereafter acquired, 
s 



66 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

constituting the Forest Preserve, as now fixed by law, shall be forever 
kept as wild forest lands, and shall not be leased, sold or exchanged, 
or taken by any corporation, public or private. 

Third. That the said act violates section sixteen of article three 
of the State Constitution, which provides that no private or local bill, 
which may be passed by the Legislature, shall embrace more than one 
subject, and that shall be expressed in its title. 

Fourth. That the said act is invalid as being in excess of the 
powers of the Legislature, in that it attempted to provide for the aliena- 
tion by the State to the Long Sault Development Company of title to 
the land in the bed of the St. Lawrence river. The title of the State in 
those lands is a sovereign right rather than a proprietary title. It is 
inconsistent with that right, which must be exercised for the benefit 
of the whole people, that the title to the bed of a navigable stream 
should be granted in fee to a private corporation. 

2. The State comptroller is hereby authorized and directed to cause 
the repayment and return to the Long Sault Development Company 
of any and all sums paid by such company into the State treasury, vmder 
the provisions of section four of chapter three hundred and fifty-five 
of the laws of nineteen hundred and seven, with interest on said 
respective sums from the times of their several payments, upon securing 
proper vouchers therefor; such moneys to be paid out by the State 
treastirer upon the warrant of the comptroller from the moneys here- 
inafter appropriated therefor. Such company is continued in existence 
for the purposes only of receiving and giving proper vouchers for said 
moneys, making proper distribution or application thereof among its 
members or other persons entitled thereto, and the winding up of its 
affairs. 

3. The sum of thirty-six thousand three hundred and twenty 
dollars (136,320), or so much thereof as may be necessary, is hereby 
appropriated out of moneys in the State treasury not otherwise appro- 
priated for the purpose of making the payments provided for in this 
act. 

4. The enumeration in this act of the grounds for such repeal 
shall not be deemed to qualify or impair the full force and effect of the 
repeal. 

5. This act shall take effect immediately. 



APPENDIX III (b) 



ACT TO PROVIDE FOR CLAIMS 

Presented by the Long Sault Development Company, Against 
the State op New York — Signed by the Governor op the 
State, May 8, 1913 

LAWS OF NEW YORK— By Authority 

Chap. 453 

AN Act to confer jurisdiction upon the board of claims to hear, audit 
and determine the alleged claims, if any, which may be presented 
by the Long Sault Development Company against the State of 
New York by reason of the repeal by the Legislature of chapter three 
hundred and fifty-five of the laws of nineteen hundred and seven. 

The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and 
Assembly, do enact as follows: 

Section 1. Jurisdiction is hereby conferred upon the board of 
claims to hear, audit and determine the alleged claims, if any, which 
may be presented by the Long Bault Development Company against 
the State of New York by reason of the repeal by the Legislature of 
chapter three himdred and fifty-five of the laws of nineteen hundred 
and seven, and the State hereby consents in all such claims to have its 
liability determined, provided that such alleged claims, if any, shall be 
filed with the board of claims within six months after this act takes 
effect. No award shall be made on any such claims against the State 
except upon such legal evidence as would establish a liability against 
an individual or corporation in a court of law or equity. 

2. Nothing herein contained shall be regarded as conceding the 
validity of any of such alleged claims upon the part of the State growing 
out of the enactment by the Legislature of chapter three himdred and 
fifty-five of the laws of nineteen hundred and seven, and by the repeal 
of said statute, nor as waiving, on behalf of the State, any defense 
thereto. 

3. This act shall take effect immediately. 



APPENDIX IV 



_^ A BILL,* 

H. R. 14531, Inthodttced in the United States House of Repre- 
sentatives, 61st Congress, Second Session, December 14th 
1909 BT G. R. Malby, being a Bill to provide for the Con- 
struction OF Dams, Locks, Canals, and other Appurtenant 
Structures in the St. Lawrence River at, and near Long 
Sault Island, Saint Lawrence County, New York 

BE it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
Long Sault Development Company, a corporation organized under 
the laws of the state of New York, its successors and assigns, be, and 
they hereby are, authorized to construct, maintain, and operate for 
water-power and other purposes a dam or dams across the St. Lawrence 
river between points on the United States and Canadian shores of said 
river near Long Sault island or Barnhart island or Sheek island, and 
the said islands, or any of them, and between said islands, in and across 
so much of the said river as lies south of the international boundary 
line between the United States of America and the Dominion of Canada, 
either independently or in connection with like works now erected or to 
be erected in and across so much of said river as lies to the north, or 
Canadian, side of said international boundary line, and in connection 
with such dam or dams, a bridge or bridges and approaches thereto, 
ahd a lock or locks, a canal or canals, and other structures appurtenant 
thereto: Provided, That such dam or dams, lock or locks, canal or 
canals, and other structures appurtenant thereto shall be constructed, 
maintained, and operated in all respects subject to and in accordance 
with the provisions of the Act entitled "An Act to regulate the con- 
struction of dams across navigable waters," approved June twenty- 
first, nineteen hundred and six: And providid further, That such bridge 
or bridges and approaches thereto shall be constructed, maintained, 
and operated ia all respects subject to and in accordance with the pro- 
visions of the Act entitled "An Act to regulate the construction of 
bridges over navigable waters," approved March twenty-third, nineteen 
hundred and six, except that the actual construction of the works here- 
by authorized shall be commenced within one year and completed 



♦The Bill was objected to by the Rivers and Harbours Committee. It waa 
revised and a new Bill was reported. 



INTRODUCTION OF BILL 14531 69 

within fifteen years from the date of the passage of this Act, or from the 
date of the consent of the proper authorities of the United States of 
America and the Dominion of Canada to the construction of said works, 
or of the approval of the plans and specifications and location and ac- 
cessory works thereof; and this Act shall not be construed as authoriz- 
ing said company, its successors or assigns, to construct the said dams, 
canals, locks, and other works until such consent and approval shall 
be obtained. 




APPENDIX V 



MEMORANDUM 

By C. E. LiTTLEFIELD, PRESENTED BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON RiVERS 
AND HaRBOTTRS OF THE UnITBD StATES HoXJSE OF REPRESENTA- 
TIVES IN Opposition to Bill H. R. 14531, Pending Before 
Rivers and Harbours Committee 

MEMORANDUM in behalf of J. Wesley Allison, W. S. Connolly 
and the Shipping Federation of Canada. 
In addition to the foregoing the Richelieu & Ontario Navigation 
Company and the Montreal Harbour Commission were represented in 
person opposing the Bill. Protest was filed from the citizens of Wad- 
dington, N. Y., and memorials that had been filed before the Interna- 
tional Waterways Commission by the Board of Trade of the City of 
Toronto, the Dominion Marine Association, the Montreal Board of 
Trade, and La Chambre de Commerce du District de Montreal, the Com- 
mission of Conservation, Canada, the Ontario Government by its at- 
torney I. Hillard, K.C., were filed, and a letter from George C. Bolt, 
enclosing a remonstrance from the New York Board of Trade. 



The real question upon which Congress has to pass 

The Long Sault Development Company chartered by the state of 
New York, May 23, 1907, is given by its charter the exclusive right for 
all time to the use of the waters of the St. Lawrence river for the de- 
velopment of electrical power "at or near Long Sault island." The 
amount expected to be developed is a minimum of 500,000 horse-power. 
The total developed and potential electrical horse-power for the United 
States in 1908 was 1,827,000 horse-power, and the total developed at 
Niagara was 274,040 horse-power. 

The project contemplates the greatest development of water-power 
ever before attempted under one charter. The capital stock of the 
Long Sault Development Company is one million dollars. It is all 
owned by the Aluminum Company of America, which has a paid in 
capital of twenty millions and has the absolute monopoly of aluminum 
in the United States. Inasmuch as the Aluminum Company is the sole 
party in interest we shall for the purpose of convenience refer to the 
Aluminum Company as the party behind the project. 



OPPOSITION TO BILL 14531 71 

In the brief filed by the Aluminum Company it is contended that 
if the project is approved it will become vested with the exclusive right 
to the use of the water subject to regulation by the United States. This 
we concede. The great proposition is then, shall the exclusive right 
for all time to the use of all of the water-power of the St. Lawrence river 
" at or near Long Sault island " with the potential development of at 
least 500,000 electrical horse-power be transferred, under the conditions 
and circumstances hereafter to be indicated, to the Aluminum Company 
thus having an absolute monopoly of the manufacture of aluminum in 
the United States? 

Upon the propriety of this action on general principles, attention 
is called to the fact that the question of electrical power and its con- 
centration in private hands has been made the subject of an extended 
investigation by the Bureau of Corporations, which in its report of Janu- 
ary 14, 1909, stated that the General Electric interests controlled, 
developed and potential, substantially 252,000 horse-power; the 
Westinghouse interests 180,000 horse-power; other large power com- 
panies 875,000; the remaining 520,000 of the total of 1,827,000 by 
smaller companies. , 

The Bureau said: 

" It is obvious that the effect upon the public of such present 

and future conditions is a matter for serious public consideration." 

If this be true, the pending project is entitled to careful considera- 
tion. 

II 

The Saint Lawrence river is an international boundary and should 
under no circumstances be embarrassed in its navigation features by large 
investments of private capital. 

The Ashburton Treaty, in Article VII, provides that the : 

"Channels in the river St. Lawrence on both sides of the 
Long Sault Islands and of Barnhart Island * * * shall be equally 
free and open to the ships, vessels, and boats of both parties." 

A project like this which includes a lock only on the American 
side and a complete dam of both channels, the practical use of which is 
questioned by engineers and experienced navigators, is clearly inhibited 
by the provision of the Treaty. 

Every difficulty involved in the erection of permanent structures 
by private capital in a navigable river as bearing upon its improvement, 
at some future period, in a manner and under circumstances impossible 
to anticipate at the time of giving the original authority applies with 
vastly greater force to an international navigable river than to one solely 
within the limits of the country conferring the authority. 



72 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

It is too obvious for argument that neither country can in the 
slightest degree, at least directly, regulate or control, either on the line 
of navigation or the development of water-power, the works that are 
situated in the other country. The interests of either country may 
develop to be entirely adverse to the other. The circumstances that 
would result in such a condition it is impossible to foretell — the prob- 
ability of their occurrence is by no means remote. It is extremely 
unwise for either country to embarrass itself by authorizing the in- 
vestment of vast sums of private capital imder circumstances so entirely 
beyond its control. 

This project contemplates the development of all the water-power 
in the river as a whole, which involves the power upon both sides, both 
in Canada and the United States, and by reason of the complications 
involved as above indicated, the control of the river should never be 
allowed to pass into the hands of any private corporation and neither 
government should allow itself to be embarrassed by private invest- 
ments. 

Ill 

Navigation is paramount and no development ought to be allowed 
which is not on a comprehensive plan devoted primarily to the improvement 
of the whole river in the interests of navigation, as to which the development 
of power should be purely incidental. 

This project from the standpoint of legislation is exclusively for the 
development of power, and there is no effort upon the part of the New 
York Legislature to improve navigation in the slightest degree. 

Messrs. Freeman and Noble, engineers representing the Aluminum 
Company, men of high character, great ability and distinguished repu- 
tation, both conceded that power was the primary purpose and that 
navigation was incidental thereto. Congress has had an experience 
which should lead it to exercise the greatest of caution in allowing 
private capital to secure a foothold in a navigable waterway. The 
Chandler-Dunbar Water Power Company some years since developed a 
water-power in the Sault Ste. Marie river. Although the original 
authorization was no doubt considered wise and judicious and as not 
involving any future embarrassment to the Government, it has now been 
definitely decided that the public interests require the entire elimina- 
tion of the company from that great navigable waterway, and the 
Government is now engaged in the condemnation of the property of 
the company and we understand large sums are claimed by the com- 
pany to adequately compensate them for the loss thereby sustained, 
very much larger sums we apprehend than are represented by the actual 
investment. 



OPPOSITION TO BILL 14531 73 

In a great navigable waterway like the St. Lawrence river, the 
Government ought not to be embarrassed byprivate investments, although 
it retains the power to regulate and control the locks and dams. After 
the construction upon plans approved by the Department at that time 
believed to be adequate, it is easy to see how subsequent developments 
may show that the power of changing and modifying should be exercised, 
and whenever such power is exercised or invoked, the inconvenience or 
expense to which the private enterprise is to be subjected is always an 
extremely embarrassing factor involved in the question of change. 
While it may have the right to compel a great corporation to make what 
are clearly necessary changes, the fact that the corporation will be sub- 
jected to large expense is a factor which tends to embarrass the efficiency 
of the right, reserved to the Government. Such rights should not be 
granted in a case of the magnitude of the one before the Committee. 

While the St. Lawrence river is not now utilized as is the Sault Ste- 
Marie, it should not be forgotten that its use is very rapidly increasing. 
In 1895 the total quantity of through freights passing through the Wel- 
land and St. Lawrence canals both east and west from and to Montreal 
was 277,244 tons. The same freight in 1909 had increased to 1,116,515 
tons, quadrupling in fifteen years. The St. Lawrence is the only natural 
waterway by which Canada can get the competition of water-borne 
freight from its vast agricultural and mining resources in the West to 
the Atlantic. The vast project of a deep waterway from the Lakes to 
the gulf of Mexico, involving an expenditure as has been estimated by 
some of five hundred millions of money, now has many earnest and able 
advocates. The state of New York is expending some one hundred 
millions of dollars for the development of its canal system. There are 
numerous large rivers giving an outlet from the interior of the United 
States to the Atlantic coast. The vital commercial necessity of water- 
borne competition is thus recognized on the very largest scale. The St. 
Lawrence should be preserved for great National and International 
exigencies of that character. 

If it is said that the Dam Act as amended June 23, 1910, provides 
for the elimination from a navigable waterway of the investment of 
private capital, we submit that the remedy thus provided prohibits this 
project. The Act provides that 

"Congress may revoke any rights conferred in pursuance of 
this Act whenever it is necessary for public use, and in the event 
of any such revocation by Congress, the United States shall pay 
the owners of any dam and appurtenant works built under authority 
of this Act as full compensation, the reasonable value thereof, exclusive 
of the value of the authority or franchise granted, such reasonable 
value to be determined by mutual agreement between the Secretary 
of War and the said owners, and in case they cannot agree then by 



74 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

proceedings instituted in the United States Circuit Court for the 
condemnation of such properties." 

First note the broad and comprehensive character of the property 
that will have to be paid for on the basis of "full compensation" by the 
United States — "any dam and appurtenant works." This would include 
not only all the power-houses and dams, but the plant and the machinery 
that would be constructed in connection therewith, and probably upon 
both sides of the International boundary line, with all of the transmission 
lines and sub-stations that might be " appurtenant works " for the pur- 
pose of transmitting electricity at least two hundred miles and perhaps 
three hundred. The Aluminum Company admits that the construction 
of the dams and power-houses alone will involve an investment of at least 
forty millions. No information is afforded as to the cost of the " works " 
that may be "appurtenant" thereto. Suppose that all of "the appur- 
tenant works " involved an equal amount of expenditure as that involved 
in the power-houses and dams. You would have eighty millions of in- 
vestment, and under this provision of the Statute if the United States 
found it necessary to remove the works in order to provide adequately 
for the navigation that may ultimately be developed in the vast country 
reached by the head waters of the St. Lawrence and the chain of great 
" unsalted seas " connected therewith, the Company would be entitled to 
"the reasonable value thereof " on the basis of "full compensation" to be 
determined ultimately by twelve men, who would have the right to say 
how much should come from the Treasury of the United States to re- 
imburse the actual investment made by a company on the faith of an 
Act of the State and Federal legislatures. It is safe to assume that the 
private corporation would not suffer any very marked reduction upon 
its original investment under such circumstance. 

Attention is here caUed to the two concluding provisos of Section 
4 of the Act of June 23, 1910. The first has already been quoted. The 
second provides that 

"The authority granted * * * shall terminate at the end 
of a period not to exceed fifty years from the date of the original 
approval of the project under this Act unless sooner revoked as 
herein provided or Congress shall otherwise direct." 

The third proviso reads as follows: 

"Provided, however, that this limitation shall not apply to 
any corporation or individual heretofore authorized by the United 
States or by any sta,te to construct a dam in or across a navigable 
waterway upon which dam expenditures of money may have hereto- 
fore been made in reliance upon such grant or grants." 

This proviso was a part of the amendment of June 23, 1910. By a 
very fortunate and happy coincidence it covers exactly the case of the 
Aluminum Company. 



OPPOSITION TO BILL 14531 75 

By the provisions of the second proviso the authority conferred 
upon all persons or corporations developing power terminated at the end 
of fifty years. Corporations covered by the third proviso were excepted 
from this provision as to termination at the end of fifty years and could 
therefore have a perpetual franchise. 

It happens that the Long Sault Development Company, while not 
yet authorized by the United States, was authorized by the state of 
New York on May 23, 1907, to construct dams, etc., and it also happens 
that the Long Sault Development Company has undoubtedly expended 
some money in reliance upon the "grant" of the state of New York. 
They contended before the Committee that they had expended $1,738,- 
373.12. We know of no other company that enjoys the advantage of 
coming within the exception provided in this general law, so that while 
companies hereafter authorized either by the State or the United States 
must receive their authority subject to termination at the end of fifty 
years, by virtue of this exception, the Aluminum Company, otherwise 
known as the Long Sault Development Company, enjoys a perpetual 
franchise. It should also be here remarked that the claimed expenditure 
of $1,738,373.12, while urged before the Committee as a reason why 
Congress should concur with the New York legislature in giving the 
necessary authority cannot in any legitimate sense be urged as a reason 
for the grant of such authority, because, while it may be that they have 
made the expenditure in part at least, on the faith of the New York 
Statute, there is no sense in which they can be said to have made such 
expenditure on the faith of the action of Congress, because Congress has 
not yet acted, and they can hardly assume that they can proceed with 
large expenditures in anticipation of the favourable action of Congress 
and then insist that such expenditures should be considered by Congress 
in entitling them to favourable action in connection with the matter of 
authorization. 

IV 

The project will injure and not improve navigation 

The project is primarily one of power development, with navigation 
incidental thereto. No obligation is imposed upon the Company to im- 
prove navigation — simply not "to impair or obstruct the navigation." 

It is true that the Aluminum Company produced able, distin- 
guished and experienced engineers, such as Messrs. Freeman and Noble, 
who were confident that the project would result in an improvement 
to navigation. They thought that the currents and character of the 
river could be ascertained as well in rowboats as in the large steamers 
that actually navigate the river, which does not seem to us to be a 



76 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

justifiable inference. Mr. Noble admitted that he had at one tijnp 
considered the question of navigation with reference to the Long Sault 
rapids, where the project is to be located, and then decided upon a canal 
around the rapids instead of improvement in the rapids, and suggested 
that the relative expense was one of the elements involved. While they 
had devoted some time to the consideration of this project, neither of 
them claimed to have made a comprehensive study of the whole river or 
to be thoroughly familiar with all of its conditions, or that with reference 
to this project they had studied it primarily as a navigation proposition. 

Mr. John Kennedy of Montreal appeared for the Montreal Board of 
Harbour Commissioners. He is an engineer of at least equal ability, 
character and experience. He lives upon the St. Lawrence river. He 
has made it a life study, and more particularly as to its navigation. He 
did not hesitate to express the opinion that the project upon the facts 
disclosed would result in an impairment of navigation instead of an im- 
provement. 

Two captains and pilots, who have been engaged for years in the 
navigation of the St. Lawrence, both upon freight and passenger vessels, 
joined in expressing the same opinion. 

The experience of the Canadian Government in an energetic effort 
to improve navigation at the Galop rapids, is a conclusive demonstra- 
tion of the fact that the opinion of the highest engineers is of very trifling 
value as to the effect of any effort to improve the St. Lawrence river. 
The Canadian Government, under the advice of its best engineers, ex- 
pended 11,100,000 in an attempt to improve navigation at the Galop 
rapids within the last few years. When the improvement was completed 
its effect was such that no insurance company would carry insurance 
upon vessels that use it. It cost the Canadian Government $1,100,000 
to demonstrate that the opinion of competent engineers is not always a 
safe basis to proceed upon in attempting to improve this river. 

The Richelieu & Ontario Navigation Company is a corporation 
chartered both in Canada and the United States. It has assets of over 
five millions. It operates a passenger and freight service on lake On- 
tario and on the St. Lawrence river between Niagara, Kingston and 
Montreal. It has about 21 passenger and freight vessels. It operates 
during four months of the year on the St. Lawrence river, and runs its 
boats down all of its rapids. The principal of these rapids are the Long 
Sault and Lachine rapids, the Long Sault rapids being in many respects 
the most important and attractive. It operated two boats on the river 
the past season, representing an investment of $400,000. It has another 
already completed at a cost of $200,000 to run during the next season. 
It expends $35,000 in cash every year for advertising. It carries during 
the months of June, July, August and September upon these tourist 
steamers down these rapids, between fifty and sixty thousand people 



OPPOSITION TO BILL 14531 77 

each year (an increase of about 50 per cent, during the last five years), 
eighty-five per cent, of whom come from the United States. The at- 
tractions on the route are the features that draw substantially all of this 
travel. The fare is $5.00 from Kingston to Montreal. The project 
absolutely eliminates the Long Sault rapids, and according to the state- 
ment of Mr. O'Donohue, the Assistant Manager of the Company, and 
Captain Batten, its chief pilot, who has the actual charge of the opera- 
tion of one of its steamers during the summer season, the construction of 
the lock and its use at the Long Sault rapids, which will be needed if 
the project goes through, will on account of the time required therein 
and the insurmoimtable difiicultiesof navigation at and below the Lachine 
rapids, also eliminate that rapids. With these two rapids eliminated 
the business of the Richelieu & Ontario Navigation Company would be 
substantially destroyed. This alleged improvement to navigation will 
cost the Richelieu & Ontario Navigation Company hundreds of thousand 
of dollars, and deprive thousands upon thousands of American citizens 
of a healthful life-giving pleasure, but will no doubt add to the profits 
of the Aluminum monopoly. 

Captain W. G. Batten, with thirty-five years', and Captain J. H. 
Logan, with about forty years' practical experience in navigating the 
river, covering the Long Sault rapids, both say that the project would 
be impracticable for freight-carrying vessels below the power-houses at 
their contemplated location, and both agree as to the effect it would 
have upon the Richelieu & Ontario Navigation Co. 

The river northeast of, and below the proposed Long Sault and 
Barnhart Island power-houses to the eastern end of the Cornwall canal 
is not now used for navigation except by passenger steamers, mainly 
going down the river, and by log rafts. In order to utilize the proposed 
lock, freight boats will have to go up the river at this place, and both 
of these experienced navigators say, as the result of their actual experi- 
ence at that place in large steamers, that the river is and will be entirely 
impracticable, if not absolutely impossible of navigation for freight 
vessels and tows on account of the swift, winding and tortuous current, 
with its swirls and eddies and narrow channels. 

It is impossible for either engineers or pilots to state precisely 
what the result of the project would be as to navigation. The proba- 
bilities only can be suggested. The project once authorized, the 
investment once made, if the result is disastrous to navigation, the 
public will have to bear it, except upon the condition of reimbursing 
the Company for its investment. This is a hazard that Congress ought 
not to assume. 



78 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

V 

The ice jams caused by the damming of the river would place the 
country above in great jeopardy. 

In 1879, 1887 and 1905 dangerous ice jams were caused in the 
St. Lawrence river simply by reason of the fact that a bridge of ice 
was formed by swinging a sheet of ice from one shore to the other. 
These flowed the river upstream something like ten miles during the 
last of January. The water was raised near the upper end of the jam 
from 9^ to 11 feet at different points along the river, and the occurrence 
of soft weather was the only thing that prevented vast destruction of 
property. Arresting the flow of this river in mill ponds, either large 
or small, very greatly increases the probability of the occurrence of 
jams of this character and makes their occurrence early in December 
instead of the latter part of January very much more than probable. 
The injury that would thus result to the people living upon the river 
above, as well as to the canals that have been constructed by the 
Canadian Government at an expenditure of millions of money, can not 
be estimated. 

The Aluminum Company contends that there is no danger from 
this cause, and that the main channel, which they contemplate in their 
project would be kept open. Mr. Freeman, who is their principal 
consulting engineer, stated " as to the main channel, that would unT 
doubtedly keep open except under a rare contingency." It is clear that 
there are contingencies under which the river would be closed, and no 
foresight can tell when such contingencies will occur or when by a lack of 
diligence or ability upon the part of the Company an ice jam would 
be precipitated. It is a hazard that the Canadian Government with its 
canals, and the people upon both sides of the river, with their property, 
ought not to be subjected to. 

Appreciating these great dangers the state of New York has made 
it a misdemeanor to 

"detach any field of ice or large body of ice," 

in the Saint Lawrence that 

"forms or is likely to form a bridge or passage-way between an 
island of the river and the main shore or between any islands of 
such river" (Penal Code, Sec. 1904). 

yet it authorizes the construction of dams, which renders the creation 
of bridges of ice on the surface almost inevitable, leaving it to the 
diligence or ability of the corporation to avert the dangers and does 
not require the Company to provide against them. 



OPPOSITION TO BILL 14531 79 

VI 

Congress exercises under this Charter a concurrent power with the 
New York legislature and assumes equal responsibility for the legislation, 
so that if the act of the New York legislature from any point of view was 
improvident and ill advised, the concurrent act of the Congress will for the 
same reasons be likewise improvident and ill advised. 

The Aluminum Company files an elaborate brief discussing the 
respective rights and powers of the State and Federal governments 
in the premises, which follows very closely the lines laid down in the able 
and exhaustive reports of Senator Nelson for the committee on com- 
merce of the Senate, and Representative Stevens as chairman of the 
sub-committee of the Interstate and foreign commerce committee of the 
House of Representatives upon this subject. 

We have no occasion to enter upon a discussion of those questions, 
as they are in no sense involved in the matter pending before the Com- 
mittee. If the state of New York had given to the Long Sault Develop- 
ment Company a clear and unconditional right to develop power and 
an unqualified title to the lands involved, without any reference to 
the rights of Congress or to the question of navigation, and the Alu- 
minum Company were now here asking Congress for its permission to 
exercise the unconditional rights thus obtained from New York in 
this navigable water, then perhaps it might well be that the question 
as to whether or not the only power that Congress could exercise would 
be such as it might exercise "for the purpose of maintaining or improv- 
ing navigation" would have to be determined. But that is not the 
question presented. 

After defining the purposes of the corporation in section 1, the 
Act of the New York legislature in section 3, proceeds to authorize 
the corporation 

"to erect, construct, maintain, operate and use all such dam or 
dams, canals or canals," etc. 

as may be necessary; and in Section 4, provides that 

"After the Congress of the United States shall authorize the con- 
struction of dams, locks and canals hereby authorized," etc., 
* * * "the commissioners of the Land Office shall upon appli- 
cation of said corporation grant unto it the title and interest of the 
people of the State in and to lands under the waters of the St. 
Lawrence river to be covered or occupied by said works and locks 
and power houses," etc. 

The Aluminum Company contends, and we concede that the title 
to such lands is in the state of New York, and it is clear that the Com- 
pany cannot acquire this title and this right to "erect said works" 
until Congress shall "authorize the construction of dams, etc." The 



80 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

legislative steps are, first, authorization by the state of New York; and, 
second, authorization by Congress. Until both authorizations concur 
the corporation has no right to proceed and the Act is inoperative. It 
is the Act of the legislature of the state of New York and not the necessity 
of protecting navigation that makes the concurrence of Congress neces- 
sary. It is a condition that the legislature had a right to impose and 
did impose. There is no intimation in the Act that Congress has to act 
in the interests of navigation or in any other interest or from that or 
any other point of view in deciding to "authorize" as provided. This 
condition thus imposed upon the corporation by the Act is unlimited 
and unqualified and does not confine the Congress in reaching its de- 
termination to the protection of navigation or to the accomplishment 
of any particular purposes. The discretion, the exercise of which will 
make the Act operative or inoperative, is full, complete, unqualified 
and conclusive. It imposes upon Congress the full responsibility of 
determining whether or not upon all of the important public considera- 
tions involved this stupendous natural resource shall be delivered for all 
time to the exclusive /control of the Aluminum monopoly. It makes 
the Congress a joint sponsor of the project, as without its concurrence 
it cannot become an accomplished fact. If this condition had not been 
imposed by- the Act of the New York legislature, the Act of Congress 
could not have had any effect upon the conveyance of the title and the 
consummation of the grant to the Company. Congress might in such 
case have refused to allow the works to be constructed in the river, 
but that is as far as it could have gone. By expressly making the Act 
inoperative, except upon the authorization by Congress, the legislature 
of New York have imposed upon Congress the responsibility of saying 
whether or not the Act shall or shall not become operative as a legisla- 
tive contract between the state of New York and the Long Sault De- 
velopment Company. By so doing it has conferred upon Congress a 
far greater power than it possessed under the Constitution, and that is, 
the right to say whether this extraordinary contract with the Aluminum 
Company shall or shall not be completed. This being true, every im- 
portant public consideration that contraindicates the wisdom and 
propriety of allowing the project to be consummated upon the terms 
proposed are elements that must be considered by Congress. 

VII 

The character of the Charter of the Long Sault Development Company 
so far as it relates to navigation. 

In the preamble of the Act it is stated, among other things, that 
it is 



OPPOSITION TO BILL 14531 81 

"for the purpose of improving the navigation of the St. Lawrence 
river." 

In the first section it is also declared, among other things, that the 
purposes of the corporation are for 

"and the permanent improvement of navigation of the St. Law- 
rence river at and above and below said place." 
Section 3 of the Charter defines in considerable detail the rights 

and privileges that are conferred upon the corporation and provides, 

among other things, that 

"the said rights being granted upon the express condition that said 
corporation, etc." * * * (here follows provisions as to com- 
pensation for injuries and provisions in relation to locks and dams 
and compl3ang with acts of Congress, etc.) "and also upon condi- 
tion that the rights hereby granted shall never be so used as to 
impair or obstruct the navigation of the St. Lawrence river, but, 
on the contrary, that said navigation shall be preserved in as good 
condition as, if not better than, the same is at present, regard being 
always had to the amount of the natural flow of water in said river 
as affecting its navigability from time to time." 

Section 4 provides that after the Congress of the United States 
shall have authorized the construction of the works involved, a con- 
veyance of the title and interest of the people of the State in the lands 
covered by the works shall be made, but there is no suggestion or inti- 
mation in Section 4 or in any other portion of the Act, that the United 
States is expected or required to impose any conditions that will improve 
navigation. So far as the Charter is concerned, the Company is under 
absolutely no obligation whatever to improve navigation. The au- 
thorization provided for by Congress is not predicated upon either main- 
taining or improving navigation. 

The Dam Act of 1906 (U. S. Stat, at Large, Vol. 34, p. 386) did not 
require the Chief of Engineers to impose as a condition of the construc- 
tion of a dam the improvement of navigation. That provision did not 
appear in the Act of 1906 until it was amended by the Act approved 
June 23, 1910, where it was provided that 

"As a part of conditions and stipulations imposed by them 
shall provide for improving and developing navigation." 
So that under the Charter of this Company there is no obligation 
resting upon the Aluminum Company to improve in any degree naviga- 
tion as a part of the consideration of the vast rights contemplated to 
be transferred to them. It is clear that the preamble and the first 
section of this Charter are misleading and deceptive, as while they would 
lead the cursory reader to believe that one of the principal purposes of 
the Charter was the improvement of navigation, the specific provision 
which follows authorizing the exercise of all the rights, powers and 
privileges of the Company, without the improvement of navigation, 
is directly inconsistent therewith. 



82 COMMISSION OP CONSERVATION 

VIII 

The compensation provided for by the Charter of the Long Savlt 
Development Company is grossly inadequate and ought not to be approved 
by Congress, as it vnU, have to be if Congress concurs in the authorization 
desired. 

The compensation provided for is found in Section 4 of the Charter — 
$10,000 is payable after Congress shall concur in authorizing the con- 
struction; $15,000 in 1910; $20,000 in 1911. After 1911, upon the 
first 25,000 horse-power, "the average amount of electrical horse-power 
generated" during said year "at the rate of 75 cents per horse-power." 
In excess of 25,000 up to 100,000 "at the rate of 50 cents per horse- 
power," and inexcessof 100,000"at the rateof 25 cents per horse-power." 
Just exactly why this peculiar scheme of progressive reduction in price 
to be paid, predicated upon a condition where it is obvious that there 
would be a correspondingly progressive profit in the utilization of the 
power, has not yet been adequately explained. 

Mr. Davis, the president of the Aluminum Company, stated that 
his company contemplated utilizing some 100,000 horse-power at the 
South Sault power-house on the American side, all of which could be 
developed without touching the main channel, and that the 75,000 horse- 
power developed and utilized after the first 25,000 would be at a con- 
siderably less cost and at a greater corresponding profit to the Company, 
and at the same time their burden of payment to the State would be 
correspondingly decreased instead of increased. Why the State should 
receive less when the corporation was making more is somewhat anom- 
alous, to put it mildly. If this is the first effort on the part of the 
state of New York, as was suggested, to conserve its natural resources, 
it is hardly prudent to allow this peculiar scheme for compensation to 
become the precedent for the price to be paid therefor. Congress must 
approve this scheme of compensation in order to concur in authorizing 
the construction desired. 

There is a provision in this section of the Act which might deprive 
the state of New York of a larger part, and perhaps the whole, of this 
compensation, as it provides: 

" But in case said corporation shall at any time be compelled 
to make any payment to the Dominion of Canada or the Province 
of Ontario for the use by said corporation of any portion of said 
water to generate power as authorized by this Act, said corporation 
shall be entitled to an equitable readjustment of the rate of com- 
pensation to be paid to the State for that portion of the said water 
for the use of which said corporation shall be compelled to make 
payment to said Dominion or Province." 



OPPOSITION TO BILL 14531 83 

Then follows a provision for making the readjustment by arbi- 
trators. It will be perceived that while the amount is to be determined 
by arbitrators, the Act specifically confers upon the Long Sault De- 
velopment Company the right to a readjustment. It says, " said cor- 
poration shall be entitled to an equitable readjustment of the rate of com- 
pensation, etc.", so that even this compensation is bound to be reduced 
in case Canada imposes any price for the development of water-power. 
No definite basis was presented to the committee upon which a con- 
clusion could be reached as to the value of this power. It was conceded 
by Mr. Freeman that the cost of development and installation and the 
cost of operation and the price for which the power could be sold were 
the necessary elements involved in the determiuation of the value of 
the horse-power. He admitted that the elements were not suflS.ciently 
definite to entitle him to reach a conclusion upon either the cost of de- 
velopment and installation or the cost of operation, or upon the price 
for which it could be sold. The Aluminum Company has absolutely 
failed to furnish any of the elements upon which a definite conclusion 
could be reached. Inasmuch as power can be developed upon the St. 
Lawrence river at Waddington, for $48 a horse-power, and the contem- 
plated development cost here would be only $80 per horse-power 
reckoning the total development cost at forty millions, and the horse- 
power to be developed 500,000, on a 5 per cent, basis $4.00 per year 
per horse-power, and electric power is now being sold at Ottawa for $15 
per horse-power, a distance of only sixty miles from the Long Sault 
rapids, and power can be transmitted commercially 200 miles with a loss 
of only 10 per cent., here is a margin of $11 a horse-power to cover interest 
on cost of transmission plant and operating expense and profit. It is 
evident enough that the project is susceptible of developing an enormous 
profit, the amount of which in the absence of the information withheld 
by the Aluminum Company, it is impossible with any definiteness to 
ascertain. 

Mr. Freeman stated that 

"Looking at it in a very general way, I thought this propo- 
sition would cost some $80 per horse power, all complete." 

This would mean on a five per cent, basis $4 per annum for horse- 
power. He declined to give any estimate of the cost of operation on 
the ground that he could not do so " without making a detailed state- 
ment of all the different elements." He objected to the five per cent, 
basis for the reason that 

"You cannot finance a water-power project of this kind in a 
locality like that without putting in various other elements and 
speculative elements in the way^ of common stock and_ preferred 
stock and brokerage and percentages to the underwriting syndi- 
cate." 



84 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

Then followed this examination: 

Mr. Littlefibld : Do you mean to say that you do not think 

you could handle this proposition without the familiar process of 

over capitalization, and watering of stock? 

Mr. Freeman : I do not know that it is over capitalization. 
Mr. Littlefibld; Some people think it is; the issuing of 

stock without anything but the expectation or the hope of success- 
ful speculation. Is that right? 
Mr. Freeman: Yes. 
Me. Littlepield : Instead of its being watering of stock it is 

issuing stock on the hope of a successful speculation? 
Mr. Freeman: Capitalized hope? 

Speculation by corporations upon the hopes and desires of the 
imwary and unsuspecting is not an unfamiliar incident of financial 
practice. It is interesting to learn that the Aluminum Company 
expects to conform to this time-honored practice and that at the 
proper time the public will be allowed as usual to gamble. There can 
be no gamble unless Congress "shall authorize" it. Will it promote such 
a speculation? 

It is to be further borne in mind upon the question of the adequacy 
of this compensation that while the ultimate minimum development 
of power contemplated is 500,000 horse-power, that that by no means 
measures the return that it is possible for the Aluminum Company 
ultimately to receive for the power. The Act requires them to pay 
compensation "upon the average amount of electrical horse-pouter 
generated during such year." It is a well-known commercial fact 
that it is possible for electrical companies to sell to their customers 
an amount of power largely in excess of what they can actually develop 
or generate. Upon this point Mr. Rickey, the practical engineer of 
the Aluminum Company, said : 

" Q. Where there is a large number of customers, that would 
involve an increase of 75 to 100 per cent, over the amount de- 
veloped? 

Mr. Rickey: In some places it is estimated at 100 per cent. 

Whether or not an adequate demand for all of this power can be 
developed is, of course, a matter of uncertainty. The power is to be 
granted for all time, and it is not a question as to whether or not the 
demand can be created within the next twenty, thirty or fifty years. 
The question is whether there are possibilities for the creation of the 
demand in any time to come. There is no provision in the act for any 
readjustment of price. If the adequate demand can be created with the 
necessary number of customers so that when power is sold on the 
peak basis, the overlapping of the peak loads enables them to sell 
vastly more than they generate. While they may continue to generate 
500,000, it is quite possible that they might sell 1,000,000 horse-power, 
resulting in a profit beyond the dreams of avarice. The steady and 



OPPOSITION TO BILL 14531 85 

continuous diminution of the fuel supply is constantly increasing the 
value of water-power, its only substitute, and thus emphasizes the 
situation. 

Enough appears from the facts above stated to show that the 
compensation reserved by the state of New York in its Charter is grossly 
inadequate. If the state of New York and the United States believe 
that their natural resources should be properly conserved, we submit 
that it should not begin the process of conservation by contracting for 
a compensation for all time that is grossly inadequate, and with the 
peculiar provision that might by virtue of the action of the Canadian 
Government in asserting its proper rights, deprive the state of New 
York of substantial compensation. It is believed that when the 
Canadian Government act with full information and in accordance 
with its present well settled policy, it would not dream of granting 
these vast rights under conditions which make them practically a 
princely gift rather than the assumption of any burden appreciable 
in its character by the donees of the rights. 

In his presidential message at the opening of this Congress, Presi- 
dent Taft indicated clearly the policy that should be pursued by the 
Federal Government which would require a leasing 

"for not exceeding fifty years upon a proper rental, and with a 
condition fixing rates charged to the public for \mits of electric 
power; both rentals and rates to be readjusted equitably every ten 
years by arbitration or otherwise, with suitable provision against 
assignments to prevent monopolistic combinations." 

Congress adopted a similar policy at Sault Saint Marie with refer- 
ence to the Michigan Lake Superior Power Company, then in the hands 
of receivers, with an expenditure of about seven millions already made 
in developing water-power, when it provided: 

"That a just and reasonable compensation shall be paid for the 
use of all waters or water-power now or hereafter owned in said 
Saint Mary river by the United States, whether utilized in said 
River or in any lateral canal (Michigan Lake Superior Power Com- 
pany) said compensation to be fixed by the Secretary of War 
* * * and the Secretary of War, in his discretion, may provide 
for readjustment of compensation at periods of ten years." (Act 
approved March 3, 1909, U.S. Stat, at Large, Vol. 35-1, page 821). 

It is hardly necessary to suggest that a proper rule for the Federal 
Government would be quite proper for the state Government, and 
that the scheme of compensation in this project bears no resemblance 
whatever to the method suggested by the President and adopted by 
Congress for the conservation of Federal water-power. It not only 
creates a great monopoly of all the power and instead of providing 
"against assignments to prevent monopolistic combinations," by 
Section 10, which reads as follows : 



86 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

" This act and all the terms, conditions and provisions thereof 
shall apply to the successors and assigns of the incorporators named 
in the first section thereof," 

would seem to contemplate assignments without limit. 

The fact that the New York legislature fixes this compensation 
cannot relieve Congress of its responsibility upon this point. The 
legislative history shows that the Bill was first passed in the New York 
legislature without any provision for compensation and that it was 
returned by the Governor for amendment iu that respect. We are 
informed that there was no hearing upon this Bill before the committees 
that reported it and practically no debate upon its passage. It is 
claimed that after many conferences with the Governor the compensa- 
tion provided was agreed upon. It appeared clearly at the hearing 
that the Governor had no more information than was presented to the 
Committee which was entirely inadequate for the purpose of reaching 
any conclusion as to the value of the power. Further than that, when 
questioned upon the point as to whether the development of one-half 
a million horse-power was disclosed to Governor Hughes, Mr. Freeman 
cautiously said: 

"I do not think that came out very fully." 

So that the conclusion reached by the Governor in the hurry of a 
legislative session was reached upon an entirely inadequate basis, and 
without having before him the information necessary to a proper and 
just conclusion. 

IX 

The project contemplates a monopoly of 500,000 horse-power on the 
part of the Aluminum Company vMhout any obligation to develop it. 

There is nothing in the Charter that requires the Long Sault Deve- 
lopment Company to generate any horse-power. It is true that the act 
provides that the title to the lands to be conveyed to the corporation 

" shall revert to the State unless the same are actually used by 
said corporation and covered by its canals, dams, reservoirs, gates, 
sluices, trunks, pipes, bulkheads, piers, flumes, abutments or other 
works appertaining thereto, or are necessary to the enjoyment for 
said purposes of any lands so used or covered within fifteen years 
from the conveyance thereof." 

This provision clearly applies to the works to be constructed by the 
Company. Nothing is said about the development by the works of 
water-power or as to the amount of power to be developed. The effect 
of the provision is that if the various works described are not erected 
then the title reverts. There is no suggestion that any horse-power or 



OPPOSITION TO BILL 14531 87 

any amount of horse-power must be developed in order to preserve the 
title of the Company to the land. It is also true that section 9 provides 
that the 

"said corporation shall begin the work of constructing its dam 
pursuant hereto within one year after the Congress of the United 
States shall authorize the construction of the dams, locks and 
canals hereby authorized, and in case such construction shall not 
be so begun, the grants, rights and privileges hereby granted may 
be forfeited," 

and it is also true that H. R. 14531 provides 

"that the actual construction of the works hereby authorized shall 
be commenced within one year and completed within fifteen years 
from the date of the passage of this Act," etc. 

but this simply requires the construction to be begun, and to be com- 
pleted. Nothing is provided with reference to the power to be de- 
veloped. The only thing that can be said to indirectly require the 
Aluminum Company to develop power is the provision found in the 
section relating to compensation, which provides that 

"if for any year after 1911, the amovmt payable at rates aforesaid, 
is less than $25,000, then said corporation shall pay for such year 
the sum of $25,000 instead of the amount that would be payable 
at the rates aforesaid." 

This undoubtedly does require the corporation to pay at least 
$25,000 per annum, and to take care of this they would only need to 
generate under the scheme — ^the compensation provided in the Act — 
60,000 horse-power at 50 cents per power, which would be equivalent to 
$25,000 a year. Inasmuch as they contemplate the building of a plant 
that will use within the next seven or eight years at least 100,000 horse- 
power, this provision would very clearly not operate as a burden upon 
them, because with a development of 100,000 horse-power they would 
be paying instead of $25,000, $50,000 per year. The only provision in 
the Act that even induces them to develop horse-power, does not con- 
template the production of more than 50,000 horse-power. They would 
still have the right to dam the whole river and control the whole power, 
and whether or not the power thus monopolized by them would be 
generated and utilized would depend altogether on the view that the 
corporation itself took as to its own financial interests without any re- 
ference to the public rights or the public interests or the public require- 
ments. 

The Long Sault Development Company being chartered for a 
private purpose, manufacturing, and not exercising a public use, the 
public will have no power to compel the Company to develop and sell a 
single horse-power. 



88 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

X 

It is conceded that the principal purpose of the Long Savlt Develop- 
ment Company is a manufacturing purpose and that the power of eminent 
domain cannot be exercised therefor. 

It may be contended that the Aluminum Company have taken care 
of this by the purchase of all of the riparian rights, but it is not conceded 
that they have covered the territory that wiU be necessarily affected 
by the project As to such as they have not purchased they have no 
Constitutional right to take any part of their property for the purposes 
of this corporation. 

It is respectfully submitted in conclusion that in view of all of the 
foregoing considerations which we think are the most important and 
salient, although they do not include aU that might be suggested, that 
Congress will not be justified in concurring with the New York legislature 
in making effective its attempt to turn over to the Aluminum Company 
with its monopoly of aluminum products for practically no considera- 
tion, the monopoly of these stupendous natural resources. 

G. E. LITTLEFIELD 




APPENDIX VI 



MEMORANDUM 

Concerning the Rights and Powers of the Long Sault Develop- 
ment Company by virtue of the Act of the Legislature of 
THE State of New York, under which it is Incorporated, 
BEING Chapter 355 of the Laws of 1907* 

BY SECTION 1 of Chapter 355 of the Laws of 1907 of the state of 
New York the Long Sault Development Company is constituted 
a body corporate for the purpose " of erecting, constructing, maintain- 
ing, operating and using in connection with the St. Lawrence river a 
dam or dams, a canal or canals, a reservoir or reservoirs, and a power- 
house or power-houses, and works appurtenant thereto, at or near 
Long Sault island, in the county of St. Lawrence, and of erecting and 
constructing a lock or locks, and works appurtenant thereto, at or near 
the same place, all for the development of electrical power and energy 
and the permanent improvement of navigation on the St. Lawrence 
river at and above and below said place; and also of constructing and 
maintaining a bridge upon or in connection with said works and of carry- 
ing on the manufacture of commodities with the said power." 

Section 2 of the Act confers upon the Company corporate powers 
usually possessed by corporations organized imder general laws. 

Section 3 of the said Act of Incorporation provides as follows: 

"Section 3. Said corporation shall have the right to erect, 
construct, maintain, operate and use all such dam or dams, canal 
or canals, reservoir or reservoirs, gates, sluices, trunks, pipes, bulk- 
heads, piers, flumes, abutments, and other works appurtenant 
thereto, as may be proper or useful for the purpose of the develop- 
ment of water-power, and of electrical power and energy therefrom, 
at such point or points upon or adjacent to the south shore of the 
St. Lawrence river, near Long Sault island or Barnhart island, and 
upon the said islands or either of them, and between said islands, 
and between said islands or either of them and the shore of the said 
river and Sheek island (but not across the international boundary 
line unless consented to by the Dominion of Canada), as may be 
selected by said corporation, and also in and upon so much of the 
said river and the bed thereof as lies to the south of the inter- 
national boundary line, at or near Long Sault island or Barnhart 
island, either independently or in connection with like works now 



♦This memorandum was presented before the Kiversand Harbours Committee 
of the United States House of Representatives, and was prepared by those in 
charge of the interests of the Long Sault Development Company. 



90 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

erected, or to be erected, in so much of said river and the bed 
thereof as lies to the north or Canadian side of said international 
boundary line, and upon and adjacent to the northerly shore of 
said river; and to erect, construct, maintain, operate and use a 
power-house or power-houses^ and conductors, cables, wires, in- 
sulators and other appliances m connection with the said works for 
the development of electrical power and energy; and also to take 
and use the waters of said river at and above the points of location 
of said works heretofore authorized, and to construct and main- 
tain upon, over and in connection with said dam or dams and other 
works, a bridge or bridges across or partly across the St. Lawrence 
river, with the approaches thereto, for the use of foot passengers, 
animals and vehicles, and to charge reasonable rates of toll for 
passage thereon; the said rights being granted upon the express 
condition that said corporation shall make just compensation to all 
persons injured by the exercise of the rights and privileges hereto- 
fore granted, and that said corporation shall also erect and con- 
struct a lock or locks as may be required by the United States of 
America, and shall provide electrical power or energy for the main- 
tenance, operation and use of said lock or locks, free of charge, and 
shall in all other respects perform, fulfill and abide by all and 
singular the conditions and provisions of this Act, and also of any 
act of the Congress of the United States relating thereto, and also 
upon condition that the rights hereby granted shall never be so 
used as to impair or obstruct the navigation of the St. Lawrence 
river, but, on the contrary, that such navigation shall be preserved 
in as good condition as, ft not better than, the same is at present, 
regard being always had to the amount of the natural flow of water 
in said river as affecting its navigability from time to time." 

Section 4 of the Act provides that after the United States shall have 
authorized the construction of the dams, locks and canals authorized 
by Section 3, and after the payment to the State by the Company of the 
sum of $10,000, the New York Commissioners of the Land Office "shall, 
upon application of said corporation, grant unto it the title and interest 
of the people of the State in and to lands under the waters of the St. 
Lawrence river to be covered or occupied by said works and locks and 
power-houses * * *." Provision is then made for the forfeiture 
of the title in case the lands so granted are not actually used for the 
purposes mentioned. Payment is to be made to the State by the com- 
pany of certain amounts based upon the amount of electrical horse- 
power generated by the Company's works. 

And it further provided as follows, viz.: 

"The ijayments above specified are based upon the assumption 
that the said corporation under the authority of this Act, subject 
only to the lawful control of the United States Government, may 
use for the purposes herein specified, at the places herein mentioned, 
all of the waters of the St. Lawrence river south of the international 
boundary line." 



MEMORANDUM OF LONG SAULT DEV. CO. 91 

It is thus apparent that the purpose of the New York legislature 
was to provide for the improvement of navigation at or near Long Sault 
island on the St. Lawrence river, and in connection therewith to 
authorize the erection of a plant for the development of electrical 
power through the use of the surplus water of the river. 

The Long Sault Development Company will, when it shall have 
complied with the requirements of the Federal law and upon the terms 
prescribed by the statute, become vested with (a) the title to that part 
of the bed of the St. Lawrence river which it is necessarjr to use in the 
construction of the works contemplated by the Act, and (6) the right to 
construct and maintain such works and to enjoy to the exclusion of all 
others the right to divert and use for purposes of operating its works, 
the surplus waters of the St. Lawrence river; subject, however, to such 
regulation either in respect of the character of the works or the use of 
the water of the river as the Federal Government (and, to some extent, 
poiated out below, the State Government) may from time to time impose 
in order to maintain unimpaired the navigability of the river. 

The jurisdiction of the Federal Government in respect of navigable 
waters is derived solely from the clause of the Constitution conferring 
upon it the power to regulate commerce among the several states and 
with foreign nations. That clause does not vest in the Federal Govern- 
ment any ownership in the flowing water or the use thereof, but only 
the paramount power to make and enforce such regulations as it deems 
proper for the preservation or improvement of the navigability of the 
stream. This power does not, however, enable the Federal Government, 
where the works are not imdertaken at its own expense, to make a grant 
either with or without compensation, of the right to use the surplus 
waters of the stream for power purposes — ^it. may only prohibit such 
use if it interferes with navigation. Subject only to this control by the 
Federal Government, the power to regulate and control the use of 
navigable streams for purposes of navigation and to grant rights for the 
use of the water of the stream for purposes other than navigation, is 
vested in the States. 

Applying these principles to the case of the Long Sault Develop- 
ment Company, it follows: 

(1) That the State Government has the power (a) to grant to the 
Company title to the land under water necessary for the construction 
of its works, (6) to determine whether its works will constitute an ob- 
struction to navigation or whether the diversion of the water necessary 
for its works will affect the navigability of the river, and (c) to exact 
compensation for the use of the surplus waters thus diverted, and: 

(2) That there is no power vested in the Federal Government 
except, in maintaining free navigation, to approve or disapprove the 
contemplated works of the company or to require modifications 



92 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

thereof; in neither case, however, exacting as a condition the payment 
of any compensation for the privilege of erecting and maintaining 
them. 

Title to Bed of River St. Lawrence is Vested in the State of New York 

The law upon this subject has recently been correctly summarized 
in Fulton Light etc. Co. vs. State of New York (65 Misc., 263), where the 
Court of Claims of the state of New York pointed out that under deci- 
sions of the courts of the State there are four classes of streams and 
bodies of water within the State, one of which includes rivers like the 
Hudson river, where the State owns the bed of the stream and a public 
easement in its waters, where the tide ebbs and flows and the title of 
the riparian owner extends only to high water mark. The court 
remarked that "In this class must also be placed those streams and 
bodies of water, non-tidal in character, which form a boundary between 
this State and other States and Canada, like the Niagara and St. Lawrence 
rivers and lake Champlain." 

Under the common law, the title to the soil beneath tidal waters 
was vested in the Grown, whereas title to the bed of the stream in all 
waters above the ebb and flow of the tide was in the riparian owners. 
But in England, where this doctrine arose, there was little difference 
between navigable streams and tidal waters. The doctrine, if rigidly 
applied in this country, would have vested in the riparian owners title 
to the soil beneath the waters of our great rivers and lakes, and this 
fact early led to the holding by the courts of a number of states that 
the doctrine was not applicable to the conditions in this country; 
and in New York it has long been held that the common law rule was 
not to be applied to the larger rivers of the State. Rights to the land 
under the waters of the Niagara river were in the case of Niagara 
County Irrigation Co. vs. College Heights Co. (Ill App. Div., 770) and 
also in Buffalo Pipe Line vs. N. Y. & Lake Erie R. R. Co., 10 Abb., New 
Gas., 107, and in the former case the court referred to one class of rivers 
as "those where the tide flows and recurs, together with the tideless 
rivers of the first magnitude, such as the Niagara, St. Lawrence, Mo- 
hawk, Genesee and Allegheny. In rivers of this class the riparian 
owners have no title to the bed of the same, consequently no exclusive 
privilege therein; but the same remains in the State for the common 
use and enjoyment of all the public." In Matter of State Reservation 
(37 Him. 537) it was held, with reference to the waters which form 
the international boundary line between the United States and Canada, 
as defined under the treaty of Ghent, that the proprietary right of the 



MEMORANDUM OF LONG SAULT DEV. CO. 93 

State extends to the centre of the Niagara river. In the early case of 
Canal Appraisers vs. Tibbits (17 Wend., 570) the court said in reference 
to the Niagara river (p. 619) : 

" It is evident that the acts of the Government in reference to 
almost all the rivers in the State have been upon the assumption 
that the State had not parted with them, or that the common law 
was not applicable to them. In the Niagara river, at Black Rock, 
the State has not only erected a dam for the supply of the canal 
with water, but has actually leased the water privileges which 
belong to the owners of the soil, if the common law is applicable 
to that noble river." 

The State has established penal laws covering fishing rights in the 
St. Lawrence and the Niagara rivers, which would be inconsistent with 
an ownership of the bed of that river by the riparian owner (People vs. 
Gillette, 11 N. Y. Supp., 461); and it has been customary for the State 
to make grants of land under the waters of the St. Lawrence river, as 
appears in the Thousand Island Steamboat Company vs. Visger, 179 N.Y., 
206. 

Even in Canada the common law rule that the title to the bed of 
a non-tidal river is in the riparian owner is rejected, and it is held that 
the St. Lawrence river above tide-water is a navigable river, the bed 
of which is vested in the Grown {Dixon vs. Snetsinger, 23 Gom. Pleas, 
Upper Canada, 235). 

In the United States Courts there has been some apparent conflict 
in the decisions. But this has been due largely to the fact that the 
Court has been influenced by the view held upon the subject in the 
States where the question has arisen. Where, however, the Supreme 
Court has been free to pass upon the question, it has held that 
the New York rule, above referred to, is correct (Barney vs. Keokuk, 
94 U. S., 324; Illinois Central R. B. Co. vs. Illinois, 146 U. S., 387; 
Shivelyvs. Bowlby, 152 U. S., 1; Scrantonvs. Wheeler, 57 Fed. Rep. 803; 
Packer vs. Bird, 137 U. S., 661). In Barney vs. Keokuk the Court said 
(p. 338) that there was "no sound reason for adhering to the old rule 
as to the proprietorship of the beds and shores of such (i.e., navigable) 
waters. It properly belongs to the States by their inherent sovereignty, 
and the United States has wisely abstained from extending (if it could 
extend) its survey and grants beyond the limits of high water. The 
cases in which this court has seemed to hold a contrary view depended 
as most cases must depend, on the local laws of the States in which the 
lands were situated." 

Under the common law rule the bed of a navigable stream which 
is not vested in the State belongs to the riparian owner. At that part 
of the St. Lawrence river affected by the projected Works of the Long 
Sault Development Company that company is the owner of all of the 



94 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

land along the shore and it would, therefore, even if the common law 
rule were applicable, be the owner of the land under the waters of the 
river. 

The United States could under no circumstances have title to the 
bed of the stream. In Pollard's Lessee vs. Hagan, 3 Howard, 212, the 
United States had attempted by patent to convey the bed of the Ala- 
bama river and the Supreme Court held the patent void, because the 
United States by its acquisition of Alabama through treaty with Spain, 
had never acquired any title to the soil under navigable rivers and 
none had been conferred by the Constitution of the United States. To 
the same effect are the cases of Martin vs. Waddel, 16 Peters, 367, and 
Good Title vs. Kibbe, 9 Howard, 471. In Scranton vs. Wheeler, supra, 
Justice Lurton, then Chief Judge of the Circuit Court of Appeals for 
the Sixth Circuit, said (p. 810) that "the doctrine that the title to the 
submerged lands within the banks of navigable rivers belongs to the 
States respectively within which such rivers are situate and not to the 
United States, was settled at an early day and has never since been 
questioned." In Rumsey vs. New York & New England R. R. Co., 63 
Hun, 200, the Court referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in 
Gibbons vs. Ogden (9 Wheaton 1), and said: 

"Thus the state yielded and granted to Congress the power 
to regulate commerce and navigation upon the waters of the 
Hudson River, but it surrendered nothing more. It conferred no 
proprietary or property rights, and while the power granted is 
plenary as to the objects specified and implied, yet the grant con- 
tains, neither expressly nor by implication, any cession of territory 
or property." The Court added: "The power bestowed upon 
Congress comprehends only the use of the water, and in no way 
diminishes the right of the State as the owner of the soil. * * * 
It is thus made manifest that Congress has no control of the land 
under the waters of the Hudson river, and cannot appropriate 
them to any use * * *." 

The State may make an absolute grant to an individual of land under 
the water of a navigable river. In Langdon vs. Mayor, 93 N. Y., 129, it 
was said that the State had the power to give private rights therein. In 
People vs. New York & Staten Island Ferry Co., 68 N. Y., 71, it was said 
that "the legislature may, as the representative of the people, grant the 
soil, or confer an exclusive privilege in tide waters, or authorize a use 
inconsistent with the public right, subject to the paramount control of 
Congress * * *." In Hoboken vs. Penn. R. R. Co., 124 U. S., 656, 
Mr. Justice Matthews, expressing the opinion of the Court, said (p. 691) 
that the State had the power to grant submerged lands of navigable 
waters to individuals and that 

"under these grants the land conveyed is held by the grantees on 
the same terms on which all other lands are held by private persons 
under absolute titles, and every previous right of the state of New 



MEMORANDUM OF LONG SAULT DEV. GO. 95 

Jersey therein, whether proprietary or sovereign, is transferred or 
extinguished, except such sovereign rights as the State may law- 
fully exercise over all other private property." 

It follows from the above authorities that the land under the waters 
of the St. Lawrence river belongs to the state of New York and the 
Long Sault Development Company will by the grant of the State become 
vested with title to the land under water necessary for its works. 

The State of New York has the Power to Grant to the Long Savlt 
Development Company the Right to Construct its Works and to Use the 
Surplus Waters of the St. Lawrence River for the Purpose of Generating 
Power. 

The nature of the rights of the State with reference to the waters of a 
navigable stream are peculiar and have no counterpart in any other kind 
of ownership. The ownership or control of waters is always qualijBied, 
inasmuch as the State holds the rights with reference to the use of the 
flowing water in trust for the people and cannot convey them so as in- 
juriously to affect the right of the public to make use of the stream for 
purposes of navigation. 

In Sweet vs. City of Syracuse, 129 N. Y., 316, the Court of Appeals 
held that there could be no such thing as absolute property acquired in 
the flowing water, as it had none of the attributes commonly ascribed 
to property and was not subject to exclusive dominion or control. The 
Court (p. 335) quoted from Blackstone to the effect that "water is a 
movable, wandering thing, and must of necessity continue common 
by the law of nature; so that I can have only a temporary, transient, 
usufructuary property therein." The Court held that the corpus of 
the stream could never become the subject of fixed appropriation or ex- 
clusive dominion, although "the right to its use, as it flows along in a 
body, may become a property right." While, therefore, there can be 
no such thing as actual ownership of the "aggregated drops that com- 
prise the mass of flowing water," the rights of the State with reference 
to the control of the usufructuary property therein or of its potentiality 
for a variety of useful purposes, not inconsistent with its main function 
in providing a medium for navigation, are extensive and absolute. 
Among other things the State may make grants of rights to use surplus 
water not needed by the public for purposes of navigation. Instances 
where States have granted such rights will serve to illustrate the extent 
of this power. 

In Hv^e vs. Glover, 15 Fed., 292, aff. in 119 U.S., 543, it was claimed 
that the locks and dams constructed by the State did not aid navigation, 
but were an impediment. The court held that the State could deter- 
mine what promoted navigation, and its decision was final, so long as 
Congress did not interfere, and that the right to charge toll for the use 



96 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

of locks erected by the State was based upon the same ground as the 
right of municipal corporations owning improved wharves upon naviga-^ 
ble waters to charge for their use. 

In Monongahela Navigation Co. vs. United States, 148 U. S., 312, 
it was held that a State might authorize a private company to construct 
a dam, or other work, in connection with the improvement of naviga- 
tion, and might further authorize the company to exact tolls, and that 
if thereafter the United States Government should condemn the property 
of such company, it must pay as a part of the damages for the taking 
the value of the franchise for tolls. The court said (p. 345) that "the 
assertion by Congress of its purpose to take the property does not destroy 
the state franchise." 

In Sands vs. Manistee River Improvement Co., 123 U. S., 288, tolls 
were exacted under authority of the legislature of Michigan, and upheld 
by the court, upon the ground that " Regulations of tolls or charges in 
such cases are mere matters of administration, under the entire control 
of the State." 

And, finally, the power of a State to grant to private individuals the 
exclusive right to use the surplus waters of a navigable stream was ex- 
pressly recognized by the Supreme Court in Green Bay & Mississippi 
Canal Co. vs. Patten Paper Co., 172 U.S., 58, and in Kaukauna Water 
Power Co. vs. Green Bay & Mississippi Canal Co., 142 U. S., 254, On 
the admission of Wisconsin to the Union as a state, Congress granted to 
it lands, the proceeds of which were to be used in improving certain 
water-ways of the State, and a company was organized under legislative 
authority of the new State which with such proceeds constructed in the 
Fox river, a navigable stream, dams and other works. The works so 
constructed were subsequently purchased by the United States Govern- 
ment, but the right to use the surplus waters made available by the erec- 
tion of the dam and not required for the purpose of navigation was not 
transferred. The United States assumed possession and exclusive con- 
trol of the river and expended a large amount of money in its improve- 
ment while the Canal Company continued in possession of the water- 
power. 

In the Kaukanna case the controversy was between the company 
and a riparian owner who claimed to be entitled to use a portion of the 
surplus water above the dam for power or other purposes, but it was 
held that he could not complain for the reason that the project was under- 
taken by the State, and it was entitled to dispose of the surplus water for 
its own advantage even though the riparian owner, but for the dam, 
would to some extent, have been able to use the water as it flowed past 
his property. The court said that a State probably could not appro- 



MEMORANDUM OF LONG SAULT DEV. CO. 97 

priate the property of individuals for the sole purpose of creating a 
water-power to be leased for manufacturing purposes and then proceeded 
(p. 273): 

" But if in the erection of a public dam for a recognized public 
purpose, there is necessarily produced a surplus of water which 
may properly be used for manufacturing purposes, there is no sound 
reason why the State may not retain to itself the power of control- 
ling or disposing of such water as an incident of its right to make 
such improvement. * * * As there is no need of the surplus 
running to waste, there was nothing objectionable in permitting the 
State to let out the use of it to private parties and thus reimburse itself 
for the expenses of the improvement. * * * 

"There was every reason why a water-power thus created 
should belong to the public rather than to the riparian owners. 
Indeed it seems to have been the practice, not only in New York, 
but in Ohio, in Wisconsin, and perhaps in other States, in authoriz- 
ing the erection of dams for the purpose of navigation, or other 
public improvements, to reserve the surplus of water thereby 
created to be leased to private parties under authority of the State; 
and where the surplus thus created was a mere incident to secur- 
ing an adequate amount of water, for the public improvement, 
such legislation, it is believed, has been uniformly sustained (p. 
274) . * * * The dam was built for a public purpose, and the 
act provided that if, in its construction, any water-power was in- 
cidentally created, it should belong to the State, and might be sold 
or leased in order that the proceeds of such sale or lease might 
assist in defraying the expenses of the improvement (p. 281) . * * 
* If any such water-power were incidentally created by the erec- 
tion of a dam, it was obviously intended that it should belong to 
the public and be used for their benefit and not for the emolument 
of a private riparian proprietor (p. 282)." 

People vs. Tibbetts (19 N.Y., 523) was an action by the State to 
recover rents under a lease of one-half of the surplus waters of the Hud- 
son river at the Troy dam. Defendant contended that he was entitled, 
as riparian owner, to the use of the water, and the lease was without 
consideration. In sustaining the lease, the court says, per Strong, J. 
(p. 528): 

"The riparian owner may undoubtedly use the water passing 
or adjoining his lands for his own advantage, so long as he 
does not impede the navigation, in the absence of any counter- 
claim by the State as absolute proprietor. But the State may, as 
such proprietor of the waters grant them, or any interest in them 
to an individual. If there is any restriction upon such power, it 
is that which is imposed by the Constitution of the United 



98 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

States * * *. It is beyond dispute that the State is the absolute 
owner of the navigable rivers within its borders, and that as such 
owner it can dispose of them to the exclusion of the riparian owners. 
In this case the State exercised its power of disposition in making 
the lease, and consequently such lease is valid." 
It is quite clear from these authorities that if the grant to the Long 
Sault Company of the right to use the surplus waters of the St. Law- 
rence river is incident to the main purpose of improving the navigability 
of the river, it is within the power of the State. 

The Federal Government has no right under the constitution, as a 
condition of approving the plans, to demand a participation in the benefits 
of the water-power created by the proposed improvement, and there is no 
basis other than the Constitution for the assertion of such right. 

There are two ways in which the National Government exercises 
its control over structures placed in the waters of navigable streams. 
It may (1) on its own initiative, and at the expense of the people, under- 
take works for the improvement of navigable waters, or (2) give or 
withhold its approval of such works when undertaken at their own ex- 
pense by private individuals or by any of the States. In the first case, 
the Government may, perhaps, assume an exclusive ownership and a 
right to dispose of the usufructuary ownership of the surplus waters; 
for in that case the expenditure of money has, as an incident to the main 
improvement, made valuable what had before had no value; and there 
would be some justice in the view that the Government Should be en- 
titled to reduce the expense of the improvement by realizing upon the 
water-power thus brought into existence. In Green Bay & M. Canal 
Co. vs. Patten Paper Co., above referred to, there was such a situation, 
and the court said (p. 81) in relation to it, 

"the entire legislation. State and Federal, in the present instance, 
has had in view the dedication of the water-powers incidentally 
created by the dams and canals to raising a fund to aid in the 
erection, completion and maintenance of the public works." 

But where works are undertaken at private expense, a very dif- 
ferent situation exists. The power of the Federal Government is then 
exerted only in a supervisory way. It approves or disapproves. It 
undertakes no expense and there is no equitable ground for it to claim 
the incidental benefit accruing from the creation of a water-power. In 
such case there is no reason why the property rights and control of the 
State incident thereto should be in any way diminished. 

The Federal Government has, as has been pointed out above, 
acquired under the constitutional provisions no property right in the 
waters of navigable waters. That has always remained under the control 



MEMORANDUM OF LONG SAULT DEV. CO. 99 

of the State. In Rumsey vs. New York & New England R. R. Co., 
already cited, the court held that the people of the State were not only 
the owner of the soil under the water but that 

" they became vested with the absolute control over the river, and 
through the medium of the legislature might exercise all the power 
which could have been exerted by the king previous to the American 
Revolution (Lansing v. Smith, supra). 

"That power remained in the people until the 26th day of 
July, 1778, when they adopted and ratified the Constitution of the 
United States, which contained the following provision : " Congress 
shall have power * * * to regulate commerce with foreign 
nations and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes " 
(Const, of the U.S., art. 1, Sec. 8, sub. 3). 

"The power to regulate commerce extended to the regulation 
of navigation (Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat., 189). Thus the State 
yielded and granted to Congress the power to regulate commerce 
and navigation upon the waters of the Hudson river, but it sur- 
rendered nothing more. It conferred no proprietary or property rights, 
and while the power granted is plenary as to the objects specified and 
implied, yet the grant contains, neither expressly nor by implication, 
any cession of territory or property" (p. 207). 

If as a condition of granting a permit to build a dam the War 
Department should require the payment of a part of the profit derived 
from the water-power incidentally created, it would be assuming control 
of the property in the surplus water without having expended any 
money in its creation; and this would be beyond its power, for the 
purpose of the Constitutional provision was not to deprive the states of 
power to regulate the use of navigable streams " but simply to create 
an additional and cumulative remedy to prevent such structures, 
although lawfully authorized (i.e., by the States), from interfering with 
commerce." Lake Shore & M. Ry. vs. Ohio, 165 U.S., 365. 

The question under consideration came before the Department of 
Justice in 1909, upon an application for a permit to build a dam in the 
Wisconsin river, and the opinion of the Attorney-General was requested 
as to the right of the Government to exact as a condition of granting 
the permit, a payment by way of compensation to the Government for 
the privilege of building the dam. Speaking of the Act of Congress of 
June 21st, 1906, entitled "An Act to regulate the construction of dams 
across navigable rivers," the Attorney-General said (Opinions of 
Attorney-General, Vol. 27, page 467) : 

"I am clearly of opinion that Congress did not by this Act 
mean to authorize those officials to require as a condition to the 
license the payment of a sum or sums by way of compensation for 
the privilege granted, although they may undoubtedly require such 
payments or assumption of expenses as are necessary or proper to 
insure the navigability of the stream. Within the scope of the 



100 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

powers granted, the discretion of the Chief of Engineers and the 
Secretary of War is not limited. * * * They may require the 
licensee to bear the entire cost of such construction, maintenance 
and operation. * * * But, in my opinion, they are not 
authorized to require a payment by way of compensation as for a 
franchise or privilege granted by such license." 
This seems to be the only official opinion of the Department of 
Justice upon the subject. President Roosevelt, it is well known, enter- 
tained and repeatedly expressed the contrary opinion. In returning 
without his approval the biUs relating to the construction of dams 
across the Rainy river and the James river, Missouri, he based his 
action upon the ground that the Federal Government could, as a condi- 
tion of granting the right to erect dams, exact the payment of certain 
sums in order that they might be used in a general scheme for improving 
navigation, upon the theory that the people owned the flowing waters 
of navigable streams, and that the United States was the representative 
of the people and had the power to grant the right to use such waters. 

The theory that the National Government, as the representative of 
the people, has any property right in the flowing water is erroneous as a 
proposition of law. It is true that the people have such a property right, 
as has been pointed out above, but it is held in trust for their benefit by 
the states and not by the United States. It cannot be held concurrently 
by the National Government and the states. So far as President 
Roosevelt's view is based upon the theory that there is a property right 
of the United States in flowing waters, it has no support in any decision 
of any court in this country. 

To exact compensation for permission to build dams in navigable 
rivers in order to provide for a general scheme of navigation would be 
contrary to the practice which has prevailed for many years in the War 
Department. In 1905 a bill was proposed in Congress to provide for 
and regulate the use of navigable rivers for industrial purposes by 
means of water-power obtained therefrom. This bill empowered the 
Secretary of War to authorize private persons to construct dams and to 
develop and use water-power at points on navigable rivers where the 
Government had not built such structures. Gen. Mackenzie, Chief of 
Engineers, made a report to the Secretary of War (Mr. Taft) in which he 
said: 

" The Federal Government has no possessory title to the water 
flowing in navigable streams, nor to the land comprising their beds 
and shores, and hence Congress can grant no absolute authority 
to anyone to use and occupy such water and land for manufacturing 
and industrial purposes. The establishment, regulation, and con- 
trol of manufacturing and industrial enterprises, as well as other 
matters pertaining to the comfort, convenience, and prosperity of 
the people, come within the powers of the states, and the Supreme 



MEMORANDUM OF LONG SAULT DEV. CO. 101 

Court of the United States holds that the authority of a state over 
navigable waters within its borders, and the shores and beds thereof, 
is plenary, subject only to such action as Congress may take in the 
execution of its powers under the Constitution to regulate commerce 
among the several states." 

The Secretary of War adopted the report of Gen. Mackenzie and 
stated that it was "comprehensive, accurate and instructive." Sub- 
sequently in 1907 a hearing was held before Mr. Taft, then Secretary of 
War, in relation to the water-power of the Des Plaines and Illinois 
rivers. It appeared that the Des Plaines river was probably not a navi- 
gable stream. But the Secretary of War, in deciding the application, 
said: 

" But even if it had been a navigable stream, and even if the 
application had been made, and properly made to this department, 
to say whether this would interfere with navigation if the depart- 
ment concluded it would not interfere with navigation, then it is 
not within the power of the department to withhold its expressing 
such an opinion and granting such a permit, so far as the United 
States is concerned, for the purpose of aiding the State in controlling 
the water-power. If the State has any control over the water- 
power, which it may exercise in conflict with the claimed 
rights of the riparian owner, then it must exercise itself, through its 
own legislation and through its own executive officers. All the 
United States does, assuming it to be a navigable stream, is merely 
to protect the navigation of the stream. With reference to the 
water-power, it has no function except in respect to water-power 
which it itself creates by its own investment in property that it itself 
owns ; and then, of course, it may say how that water-power shall 
be used. 

" But with respect to the water-power on a navigable stream, 
which may be exercised without interference with the use of the 
river for navigation purposes, that is controlled by the laws of the 
State. It is controlled by the riparian ownership and by the common 
law as it governs those rights. Therefore I do not see, with reference 
to this matter, that this department has any function to perform 
or which it can perform." 

When the last amendment of the law relating to the building of 
dams across navigable waters was under consideration in Congress, a 
sub-committee of the committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce 
considered the entire subject and under date of February 25th 1909, 
made a comprehensive report from which we have taken the foregoing 
extracts from opinions of the Secretary of War. The conflicting 
views upon the subject of the power of the Federal Government in 
relation to navigable waters were fully set forth in this report and the 
sub-committee reported a bill under consideration in alternative 
forms. In one form the bill represented the view of President Roose- 
velt and authorized the War Department to exact as a condition of 
granting a permit to build a dam such charges as might be proper and 



102 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

legal, the proceeds of which were to be paid into the Treasury to be 
applied to the improvement of navigation. In the other form of the 
bill, the purpose for which charges were authorized were declared to 
be to reimburse the United States for any expense in restoring conditions 
"with respect to navigability as existing at the time" the privilege 
was granted. Congress adopted the latter form. It is quite evident 
from this action and from the general provisions of the act as finally 
passed, that Congress rejected the theory that the United States had any 
power to make a charge for the use of a water-power incidentally 
created by a dam except so far as such charge might be necessary in 
connection with the preservation or improvement of the navigation of 
the waters affected. 

It thus appears that while President Roosevelt attempted to 
inaugurate a governmental policy based upon the theory indicated 
in his veto messages above referred to, the Department of Justice and 
the Department of War have proceeded upon the contrary view, and 
Congress has likewise refused to assert the broader power. 

Under the Act of the legislature of the state of New York, the 
Long Sault Development Company, as compensation for the grant of 
corporate and other privileges, has agreed that it will pay to the State a 
certain proportion of the profits derived from the water-power which is 
to be created. Obviously by this Act the State has asserted the right to 
dispose of the water-power, making it, however, expressly subject to 
the power of the Federal Government to regulate the manner in which 
navigation in the stream shall be provided for. Presumably the State 
by this action has protected the interest of its people in the water- 
power which is to be created. If the Federal Government under its 
reserved constitutional power confines itself to safeguarding the interests 
of the people of the United States in preserving or .improving the 
navigability of the St. Lawrence river, all the interests of the public 
will have been protected, and the rights of the State established by 
an unbroken line of judicial decisions to enjoy the usufructuary property 
in the waters within its boundaries will be respected. There is no 
reason why the enhancement under modern conditions of the value 
of the water-power of our navigable waters should be made the basis 
for a theory of law or a policy of the Government which would ignore 
the rights of the State so long and so uniformly recognized. 

Conclusions 

The following conclusions may be drawn, viz. : 

1. The state of New York owns the land under the waters of 
the St. Lawrence river and has the power, and has agreed, to transfer 
its title thereto to the Long Sault Development Company. 



MEMORANDUM OF LONG SAULT DEV. CO. 103 

2. The State has the power, and has by the Act of Incorporation 
agreed, to grant to the Development Company the right exclusively 
to use the surplus waters of the river for its corporate purposes. 

3. The United States by Congressional or Executive Act has power 
to grant or to withhold permission to erect the dam and its appurten- 
ances, but this power can be exercised only for the purpose of maintain- 
ing or improving navigation. 

4. The United States Government has no power to exact, as a 
condition of its permission to erect the dam, that the company shall 
pay any compensation for the use of the surplus waters or for any other 
privilege, although it may always determine how much of the water 
of the river is needed for purposes of navigation and therefore how 
much may be withdrawn for other purposes. 

5. When the development company shall have obtained title to 
the necessary land under water and shall have built its works pursuant 
to the plans approved by the State and National Governments, it will 
become vested with the exclusive right to use the surplus waters of the 
river, subject alone to regulation by the United States (and perhaps the 
State) of the amount to be from time to time diverted. 




APPENDIX VII 



REFERENCE should be had to the Reports of the International 
Waterways Commission, especially to Third, Fourth, Fifth and 
Sixth Progress Reports of the United States Section. 

Note: The Bill, H. R. 25707 of the 59th Congress, Second Session, 
which was introduced into the House of Representatives on behalf of the 
Long Sault project, will be found at page 74 et seq of the Third Progress 
Report, and at page 76 et seq will be found Chapter 355 of the Laws of the 
State of New York for 1907, the same being the Act of Incorporation 
for the Long Sault Development Company. 

ALSO 

The Sixth Annual Progress Report at page 10 et seq, gives a discus- 
sion respecting Bill H. R. 14531, including a Report t)y the American 
Section of the International Waterways Commission to the Chairman of 
the Committee on Rivers and Harbours, dated March 11, 1910. 




APPENDIX VIII 



PROPOSED WORKS 

Of the St. Lawrence Powek Company and Long Sault Develop- 
ment Company in the St. Lawrence River Near Barnhart 
Island* 

PRELIMINARY 

THE St. Lawrence Power Co., Limited, owns the power development 
at the foot of Sheek island near Mille Roches, Ontario. It takes 
water from the Cornwall canal on the north side of Sheek island and fur- 
nishes electric power and lights for the Cornwall canal and for Cornwall, 
Moulinette, Mille Roches and Wales. 

The fall in the St. Lawrence river adjacent to the plant of the St. 
Lawrence Power Co., Limited, would, theoretically, furnish a substantial 
amount of power. The present owners of this Company secured pos- 
session believing that this theoretical power could be developed, at a 
reasonable cost, so as to materially increase the capacity of the existing 
plant. Investigation has shown that without the co-operation of the 
riparian owners on the opposite American shore, the St. Lawrence Power 
Co., Limited, can develop this power only to a very slight extent. 

The capacity of the existing plant is limited to about 3,000 contin- 
uous horse-power and 2,300 intermittent horse-power available only a 
portion of the year. This continuous power could perhaps be increased 
to 6,000 horse-power, but this is the maximum amount that can be 
commercially developed entirely in Canada and without the co-opera- 
tion of the American interests. There is no other suitable site, adjacent 
to the Long Sault, that the St. Lawrence Power Co., Limited, could use 
for independently developing additional power. 

The Long Sault Development Co., a New York State corporation, 
is empowered by its charter, to construct dams, power-houses, locks and 
works appurtenant thereto in the St. Lawrence river, so far as these 
works will be in American territory, and is therefore in a position to 
utilize the fall in the St. Lawrence river above mentioned. 

By co-operation, in developing the power of the Long Sault, these 
companies will be able to supply in the adjacent territory a large amount 
of power and only by such co-operation can the full potentiality of the 



♦This is an ex parte statement by J. W. Rickey, Chief Engineer of the Long 
Saiilt Development Company, the applicants, for permission to dam the Long Sault. 



106 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

river be made available. Such development is in conformity with 
the fundamental principles of the conservation of natural resources. 
A general outline of the plan is as follows : 

Map Showing General Location of Proposed Works 

The map* accompanying this description shows Long Sault, Sheek 
and Barnhart islands, the Cornwall canal, and the situation of the Inter- 
national boundary with respect to the main channel on the St. 
Lawrence river. This main channel is in international waters on the 
north side of Long Sault island; but, a short distance below the rapids 
which are principally between Long Sault and Sheek islands, it lies south 
of Barnhart island and entirely within American territory. About 95 
per cent, of the volume of water in the St. Lawrence river flows in this 
main channel south of Barnhart island; the other 5 per cent, flows 
through Little river and through the Cornwall canal. Little river 
forms the International channel between Barnhart and Sheek islands. 
The location of the proposed dams, power-houses, canals and new 
lock is also shown. 

Dams and Controlling Works 

A dam, for convenience called the "Upper dam," is proposed be- 
tween the western end of Barnhart island and the eastern end of Long 
Sault island; at each end of this dam next to the shores, there will be 
a number of large sluice gates, the combined discharge of which 
will be about 100,000 second-feet, or 40 per cent, of the average flow 
of water in the river. Another dam, called the " Lower dam," is pro- 
posed between the easterly end of Barnhart island and the Canadian 
shore ; it will lie on both sides of the International boundary. It is pro- 
posed to construct both dams of solid concrete masonry and of the grav- 
ity type. 

In addition to the sluice gates at the Upper dam there will be 
constructed at each of the power-houses a number of large sluice gates to 
control the water level above the dams. These gates will be from 35 to 
50 feet wide with about 15 feet of water on t^e sills; they will be so con- 
structed that they can be operated throughout the entire year. 

Pov;er-Houses and Lock 

At the north-easterly end of the Lower dam the St. Lawrence Power 
Co., Limited, proposes to construct a large power-house, between the 
dam and the Canadian shore near lock 20. This power-house will be 



*A map based on the Admiralty and U.S. Engineers' charts accompanies 
this report. Special information respecting ice jams and the proposed works of 
the Long Sault Co. is shown in red. 



PROPOSED WORKS OF tONG SAULT DEVELOPMENT CO. 107 

entirely in Canadian territory, and will be large enough to utilize all of 
the water that will be made available at this point by the construction 
of the dams. 

The Long Sault Development Co., proposes to construct a power- 
house and lock across the South Sault channel, between the foot of 
Long Sault island and the main shore, The use of this lock will save 
approximately 4^ hours time on each round trip of the boats which now 
use the Cornwall canal. 

At the eastern end of Barnhart island it is proposed to construct one, 
or possibly two, power-houses, and to excavate a head-race leading 
from the forebay immediately above the Lower dam to these power- 
houses. ' 

Miscellaneous Construction 

The width of Little River channel will be increased to about 1,000 
feet to provide a straight, wide and deep channel for conveying water to 
the power-houses near the Lower dam. 

Earthen dykes will be constructed on the south side of the Cornwall 
canal, between locks 20 and 21, as may be required. 

All changes to locks 20 and 21 made necessary by the construction 
of the proposed dams will be made free of cost to the Government. 

Government Approval and Inspection 

It is proposed to have the Engineering Department of both the 
Canadian and United States Governments approve the plans and, if de- 
sired, inspect the construction of the works that are to be built in their 
respective countries. 

Cornwall Canal Conditions 

The Cornwall canal is 11^ miles in length, of which over 5 miles 
are formed by earth embankments; between locks 20 and 21 there are 
over 2J miles of these embankments which, in places, are subjected to 
over 35 feet head of water. When the proposed dams are built and the 
water in the river above them is raised to the proposed level, the present 
unbalanced pressure on the canal banks, between locks 20 and 21, will 
be practically eliminated, and all danger of a washout in this section of 
the canal will be removed. Below lock 20, the conditions will remain 
unchanged. The construction of the proposed works will reduce the 
present risk of a washout in the entire canal at least 50 per cent. ; this 
result could only be obtained by the expenditure of many hundred 
thousand dollars by the Canadian Government. 

The break in the canal bank, near lock 18, which occurred June 23, 
1908, blocked all navigation in the Cornwall canal for 17 days. Had the 
South Sault lock been in operation at that time, no delay whatever 



108 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

would have been caused by this washout, since all boats could have 
used the South Sault lock pending the repairs to the canal bank. 

Scenic Beauty of the River to be Preserved 

The scenic beauty of the river above lock 21 will not be affected. 
Below the dams, the river scenery will remain practically unaltered. 
The only scenic change will be the replacement of the present rapids by 
long overflow dams; the water will pass over the crests of these dams in 
two unbroken sheets with a combined length of one and one-half mile, 
and a height of approximately forty feet, nearly one-fourth that of 
Niagara Falls, a sight equal in grandeur to that of the Long Sault and 
one which would be unique in all the world.* 

Under the present conditions the Long Sault is seen by tourists 
during the short summer season of about four months, and then only 
for a very few minutes as they pass rapidly in a boat. Under the 
proposed conditions the scenery adjacent to the dams may be enjoyed 
by tourists throughout the year. 

Effect of Proposed Works on Transportation Companies 
and the General Public 

) The Long Sault is navigated by a single line of passenger boats; 
these boats make a daUy trip down-stream during the summer tourists' 
season, June to September, inclusive. No rafts or freight steamers use 
the maia channel on the north side of the eastern end of Long Sault 
island, and no boats whatever can go up this channel. At a public 
hearing in Montreal November 6th, 1907, objection was raised to the 
construction of the proposed dams on the ground that the obliteration 
of these rapids would greatly decrease the number of tourist passengers. 
The construction of the proposed dams will afford the opportunity 
for tourists to pass through the highest lift masonry lock in the world 
and to see the two longest spillway dams that have ever been built, 
with water several feet deep passing over the crest and falling about 
forty feet. Such attractions will more than offset a trip through the 
Long Sault, which is generally conceded to be less picturesque and 
thrilling than the Coteau rapids, the Cedars, the Split Rock, the Cascades 
and Lachine rapids, which are successively passed between this point and 
Montreal. 

-Passenger steamers will meet a delay of only about 30 minutes by 
using the South Sault lock as compared to shooting the Long Sault. 
On the west-bound trip they will save at least two hours time as com- 



* With the Long Sault Company's plant in full operation, and passing 
practically all the water through its turbines, the amount flowing over its dams 
would be a negligible quantity. — ^Ed. 



PROPOSED WORKS OF LONG SAULT DEVELOPMENT CO. 109 

pared to passage through the Cornwall canal, so that on a round trip 
they will save about 1^ hour's time under the proposed conditions. 

Freight steamers will be able to save at least 4^ hour's time on each 
round trip by using the South Sault lock. 

The power from the proposed works will be used principally by 
factories and industries yet to be established within the radius of trans- 
mission of electricity from the power-houses. Raw material will be 
delivered to the factories from distant sources of supply and the 
finished products will be sent to the world's markets. The construction 
of the proposed works will greatly increase the revenue of the boat- and 
rail-transportation companies. 

New industries and factories, contingent upon the development of 
the Long Sault, will give employment to thousands of persons and in 
one way or another all communities, using power from the proposed 
works, as well as the general public, will be substantially benefitted 
thereby. 

Contour Surveys Along the River 

The engineers of the two Companies have completed accurate 
surveys of the entire river from the eastern end of Barnhart island to 
Waddington, a distance of about 23 miles. These surveys show all the 
contours, at 2^ feet intervals, also the property lines on the islands and 
the main shores, to a point above Croil island ; between this latter point 
and Waddington the contours and property lines were surveyed to 
elevation 215, sea-level datum. From these maps can be determined 
all questions thati will be involved when the river is raised to the 
proposed level. 

The St. Lawrence Power Co., Limited, has acquired much land 
and many riparian rights that will be affected by the proposed changes, 
and negotiations are under way for securing the remainder. 

The Long Sault Development Co., on the American side, has 
acquired practically all of Barnhart island and the eastern half of Long 
Sault island together with riparian rights around the western end of 
the island, also nearly 2,000 acres of land on the main shore, extending 
from a point opposite the eastern end of Barnhart island, up-stream to 
the Massena canal, a distance of about 8 miles. Both companies are 
acquiring land on their respective sides of the river to elevation 215, 
sea level datum, which will be well above the future river level; they 
are also securing riparian rights along the streams that flow into the St. 
Lawrence river, where there is any possibility of riparian damage being 
caused. 



no COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

Improvement in Ice Conditions at Cornwall 

The greater part of the frazil ice in the section of the river above 
Cornwall is formed in the swift open stretches of water above the Long 
Sault and in the rapids themselves. The construction of the proposed 
dams will reduce the velocity of the river above them ; the Long Sault 
will be entirely obliterated and there will be a great reduction in the 
amount of frazil ice that will be formed. 

Under existing conditions the enormous masses of frazil ice that 
are formed in and above the rapids, pass down stream to the quiet water 
at the head of lake St. Francis; there they form hanging dams on the 
under side of the sheet ice on the lake. Every winter these hanging 
dams create a flood from backwater that rises from 15 to 30 feet above the 
normal summer level of the water in the river endangering the town 
of Cornwall. In the year 1887 the backwater extended as far as Fifth 
street, so that practically two-thirds of the town was flooded. 

The danger of winter flood and backwater at Cornwall will not be 
entirely removed by the proposed dams, but the danger arising from the 
annual ice jam will be very much lessened, a point of vital importance 
to the people of Cornwall. 

Improvement in Ice Conditions Above the Dams 

In previous years, notably 1887 and 1905, large ice jams formed 
at critical points in the river channel opposite Farran Point and also on 
the south side of Croil island. The backwater caused by these jams 
extended up-stream as far as Morrisburg. 

Careful surveys of the high water marks of the worst flood on 
record, that of February, 1887, between Cornwall and Morrisburg, show 
conclusively the following: 

The main channel of the river, from the lower end of Croil island 
to the upper end of Barnhart island never becomes congested with 
ice, even when the backwater below the rapids is raised to practically 
the same level as that proposed above the dams. Below the Long 
Sault and above Croil island the jams frequently block the entire 
channel, from shore to shore. 

The floods at Morrisburg are caused principally by the ice jams in 
the vicinity of Weaver point. The following table shows the backwater 
rise, in February, 1887, above the normal summer level, the river 
discharge being approximately 250,000 second-feet in both cases. 



PROPOSED WORKS OF LONG SAULT DEVELOPMENT CO. Ill 





Normal 








surface 


Flood level 


Backwater 


Place in Main Channel 


(Sea-level 


February, 


Rise 




datum) 


1887 




OnDoarte look 18 


El 156-4 


F,l ISf^.4. 


29-0 ft. 
31-0 " 


Opposite eastern end Barnhart island . . . 


159-2 


190-2 


Opposite middle Barnhart island 


164.7 


194-2 


29-5 " 


Opposite western end Barnhart island . . . 


172-9 


194-2 


21-3 " 


At proposed upper dam site 


182-0 


9nn.n 


18. n " 


Opposite entrance to Cornwall canal 


200-1 


204-1 


4-0 " 


One mile below western end Long Sault 








island 


203-0 


904.. 4. 


1 .4 " 


Opposite western and Long Sault island . 


204-8 


206-2 


1-4 " 


Opposite western end Croil island 


206-1 


209-7 


3-6 " 


One mile east of Weaver point 


208-0 


214-3 


6-3 " 


Opposite Weaver point 


208-3 


224-7 


16-4 " 


Opposite Morrisburg 


213-5 


225-5 


12-0 " 







The ice jams above Long Sault island are generally formed arti- 
ficially by the inhabitants, and can be prevented. Those of natural 
formation can be broken up. 

The construction of the proposed dams will improve ice conditions 
above them and materially lessen the risk of flood at Morrisburg. 

SUMMARY 



7. Advantages to the General Public 

(a) The construction of these works will afford abundant, reliable 
and cheap power to all districts within the radius of transmission of 
electricity from the power-houses. 

(6) The furnishing of cheap power will create many new industries 
and will be of great advantage to those already established. 

(c) The construction of the propofed dams and power-houses will 
require the expenditure of many millions of dollars, which will be dis- 
tributed among the transportation companies, manufacturers, trades- 
men and workmen. It is impossible to estimate the amount which will 
be expended directly or indirectly consequent upon the utilization of 
this power, but the amount required for the construction of the 
factories, installation of transmission lines, etc., etc., will run into 
many more millions of dollars. 

(d) The power from the entire development will be used almost 
exclusively for manufacturing purposes and the products must be 



112 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

distributed by boat or rail; this will mean increased revenue to the 
transportation companies for all future time. 

11. Improvement of Navigation 

(a) Navigation will be very much improved. The present practi- 
cally impassable rapids will be eliminated and in their place will be a 
broad and safe stream. The velocity of the current in the Farran Point 
and the Big Sny channels ' will be substantially lessened. 

(6) The South Sault lock will duplicate the means now afforded by 
the Cornwall canal for navigation past the Long Sault, and will post- 
pone the time when the Cornwall canal must be enlarged at great 
expense to the Canadian Government. 

(c) The duplication of navigation facilities past the Long Sault 
will insure shipping interests against delay due to failure or accident 
in either the Cornwall canal or the South Sault lock. 

(rf) The construction of these works will enable boats passing the 
Long Sault to make a round trip in approximately 4J hours less time 
than at present. 

(e) The South Sault lock will be operated seven days per week 
during the navigation season, and like the Cornwall canal will be toll 
free. 

///. Improvement in Ice Conditions 

(a) Ice conditions below the dams will be much improved, thus 
reducing the danger from the annufil ice gorges and floods at Cornwall. 

(6) The river above the dams will be kept free from ice jams so 
that a repetition of the floods of 1887 and 1905 will not occur again. 

IV. Cornwall Canal Conditions 

(a) The proposed development will be made, preserving the 
integrity and utility of the Cornwall canal. 

(6) The proposed development is so planned that traffic in the 
Cornwall canal will not be affected by the development in any way 
whatsoever. The Cornwall canal will remain unchanged and will be 
open to traffic both during the construction period and forever 
thereafter. 

(c) When the water above the dams is raised to the proposed 
level, all danger of a washout of canal banks between locks 20 and 21 
will be entirely and permanently removed. 




H 
O 



Q 
O 

o 
pq 

w 

O 

o 

S5 



o 

M 

CO 

W 
<! 

« 

K 



M 
O 



o 
o 



2; 



W 
o 
o 



APPENDIX IX (a) 

BILL No. 115 

As Originally Inthodtjced to the House of Commons of Canada, 
TO Incorporate the St. Lawrence Power Transmission Com- 
pany, Limited, 2nd Session 11th Parliament. 9-10 Edward 
VII., 1909-10* 

An Act to incorporate the St. Lawrence Power Transmission Company, 

Limited. 

WHEREAS a petition has been presented prayiag that it be enacted 
as hereinafter set forth, and it is expedient to grant the prayer 
of the said petition: Therefore His Majesty, by and with the advice 
and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as 
follows : 

1. Francis H. McGuigan, of the city of Toronto, in the province 
of Ontario, contractor; James W. Rickey, of the town of Massena, in 
the state of New York, hydraulic engineer; WiUiam Chalmers MacLaren, 
manufacturer and Robert Bowie, manufacturer, both of the town of 
Brockville; Isaac Phillip Wiser, of the town of Prescott, manufacturer; 
Peter Ernest Campbell, merchant and Archibald Denny, banker, both 
of the town of Cornwall, all in the province of Ontario, together with 
such persons as become shareholders in the company, are incorporated 
under the name of "The St. Lawrence Power Transmission Company, 
Limited," hereinafter called "the Company." 

2. The works authorized by this Act are declared to be for the 
general advantage of Canada. 

3. The persons named in section 1 of this Act are constituted 
the first or provisional directors of the Company. 

4. The capital stock of the Company shall be two hundred and 
fifty thousand dollars, divided into shares of one hundred dollars each. 

5. The head office of the Company shall be in the town of Corn- 
wall, in the province of Ontario, or at such other place as is from time 
to time determined by by-law of the Company. 

6. The Company may purchase, lease or otherwise acquire lands 
and water-powers, and may construct, maintain, operate, use and 



* After the Bill had been radically amended as a result of protests made by the 
Commission of Conservation, and Canadian marine and other interests, it was passed 
in the form set forth in Appendix IX(b), page 117. 
8 



114 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

manage works, machinery and plant for the generation, storage, trans- 
mission and distribution of pneumatic, electric, hydraulic and other 
power or energy, and may acquire by lease, purchase or otherwise 
electricity, electric, pneumatic, hydraulic or other current, power or 
force, and may store, use, supply, furnish, distribute, sell, lease, con- 
tract for or otherwise dispose thereof as well as electricity, current, 
power or force produced by the Company, for all or any of the purposes 
of light, heat or power or any other purpose for which electricity or 
electric or other power, current or energy can be used. 

7. The Company may construct, maintain and operate lines of 
wires, cables, poles, tuimels, trenches, conduits and other works in 
the maimer and to the extent required for the purposes of the Company, 
and may conduct, store, buy, sell, contract for and supply electric and 
other power, and may, with such lines of wires, cables, poles, tunnels, 
trenches, conduits and motors or other conductors or devices, conduct, 
convey, furnish or receive such electricity or other power or energy to 
or from any other company or person at any place through, over, along 
or across any public highway, bridge, viaduct, railway or watercourse 
or over or under any waters. 

8. The Company may acquire and utilize water-power and steam- 
power for the purpose of compressing air or generating electricity, and 
may contract for, sell, dispose of and distribute the same either as 
water-power or other power, or may convert it into electricity or other 
force for any purpose for which electricity or other power can be used. 

9. The Company may also, for the purpose of enabling it to 
furnish and guarantee continuous power for the use proposed to be served 
by the Company, import electricity or other power or energy from the 
United States, and may export electricity or other power to the United 
States. 

10. The Company may construct or acquire by lease, purchase 
or^otherwise, and operate in connection with the works, lines and 
business of the Company and for the purposes thereof, lines of telegraph 
or telephone or other works and means of communication. 

11. The Company may aid, by way of bonus, loan, guarantee or 
otherwise, any industry or enterprise using or agreeing to use power 
supplied by the Company or supplying or agreeing to supply power to 
the Company, and may acquire stock in any corporation carrying on 
or having power to carry on any such industry or enterprise, and the 
bonds, debentures or other securities or obligations of any such corpora- 
tion, and may act as agent or manager of any such industry, enterprise 
or corporation. 

12. The Company may sell, lease or otherwise dispose of its assets 
or property. 



ST. LAWRENCE POWER TRANS. CO.— ORIGINAL BILL 115 

13. The Company may enter into, perform and carry out any 
agreement with any power company authorized to do, perform or 
exercise any of the powers conferred upon the Company for the pur- 
chase by and sale and transfer to the Company of the whole or any 
part of the rights, powers, franchises, assets, property, business and 
undertakings of such other company, and for the assumption and pay- 
ment by the Company of the whole or parts of the contracts, obliga- 
tions and liabilities of such other company. 

14. The Company may within the counties of Leeds, Grenville, 
Dundas, Stormont and Glengarry in the province of Ontario, and in 
the counties of Soulanges, Vaudreuil and Jacques Cartier, and the city 
of Montreal ia the province of Quebec, enter upon any private property, 
and survey, set off, take and acquire such parts thereof as are necessary 
for any of the works or undertakings of the Company or for the lines, 
wires, cables, poles, tunnels, trenches or conduits of the Company^ and 
may enter upon any lands adjacent to such lines or conduits and fell 
any trees or the limbs thereof or other obstructions necessary to guard 
the safety of such lines or conduits, and in the case of disagreement 
between the Company and any owner or occupier of lands which the 
Company may take or enter upon for any of the purposes aforesaid or 
in respect of any damages done thereto by constructing the said works, 
undertakings, lines, cables, poles, tunnels, trenches or conduits upon 
the same or removing obstructions therefrom, the provisions of The 
Railway Act applicable thereto shall apply. 

15. The Company may take and make surveys and levels of the 
lands and properties upon, through or under which the works of the 
Company are to be erected, passed or operated, together with the map 
or plan thereof and of the course and direction of the said works and of 
the lands and properties intended to be taken or to be passed through 
or under so far as then ascertained, and also the book of reference for 
the works, and deposit them as required by The Railway Act with respect 
to plans and surveys by sections or portions less than the whole of the 
said works and of such parts thereof as the Company sees fit, and upon 
such deposit as aforesaid of the map or plan and book of reference of 
any and each of such sections or portions of the said works all the 
sections of The Railway Act applicable thereto shall apply to each of 
such sections or portions of the said works as fully and effectually as 
if the said surveys and levels had been taken and made of the lands 
and properties upon, through or under which the whole of the said 
works are or were to be erected or passed, together with the map or plan 
of the whole thereof, as fuUy as if the book of reference for the whole 
of the said works had been taken, made, examined, certified and 
deposited according to the said sections of The Railway Act. 



116 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

16. The directors may from time to time issue bonds of the 
Company for the purpose of raising money for prosecuting the said 
undertaking, which bonds shall be a charge upon the works, franchise, 
plant and undertaking of the Company, and shall be payable at such 
time and places and be sold at such price as the directors determine 
and the Company may mortgage or pledge any such bonds for advances 
of money to be made thereon. 

17. The operations of the Company may be carried on throughout 
Canada. 

18. Section 151 and sections 172 to 220, both inclusive, of The 
Railway Act shall apply to the Company and its undertakings in so far 
as the said sections are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, 
and subject to the following: 

(a) Wherever in the said sections of The Railway Act the word 
"company" occurs it shall mean the Company hereby incorporated. 

(&) Wherever in the said sections of The Railway Act the word 
"railway" occurs it shall, unless the context otherwise requires, and 
in so far as it applies to the provisions of this Act, mean the lands, 
works, conduits, cables or other works authorized by this Act to be 
constructed or acquired. 

(c) Wherever in the said sections of The Railway Act the word 
" land " occurs it shall include any land, property, privilege or easement 
required by the Company for carrjdng on and constructing the works 
authorized by this Act, or any portion thereof, without the necessity of 
acquiring a title in fee simple thereto. 

19. Sections 127, 136, 137, 141 of Part II of The Companies Act 
shall not apply to the Company. 



APPENDIX IX (b) 



ACT OF INCORPORATION 

Of the St. Lawrence Power Transmission Company, as Fi- 
nally Passed by the House op Commons of Canada, 9-10 
Edward VII. Chap. 166. Assented to 4th May, 1910 

An Act to Incorporate the St. Lawrence Power Transmission Company, 

Limited 

WHEREAS a petition has been presented praying that it be enacted 
as hereinafter set forth, and it is expedient to grant the prayer 
of the said petition: Therefore His Majesty, by and with the advice 
and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as 
follows: 

1. Francis H. McGuigan, of the city of Toronto, in the province of 
Ontario, contractor; James W. Rickey, of the town of Massena, in the 
state of New York, hydraulic engineer; William Chalmers MacLaren, 
manufacturer and Robert Bowie, manufacturer, both of the town of 
Brockville; Isaac Phillip Wiser, of the town of Prescott, manufacturer; 
Peter Ernest Campbell, merchant and Archibald Denny, banker, both 
of the town of Cornwall, all in the province of Ontario, together with 
such persons as become shareholders in the company, are incorporated 
under the name of " The St. Lawrence Power Transmission Company, 
Limited," hereinafter called "the Company." 

2. The persons named in section 1 of this Act are constituted the 
first or provisional directors of the Company. 

3. The capital stock of the Company shall be two hundred and 
fifty thousand dollars, divided into shares of one hundred dollars each. 

4. The head office of the Company shall be in the town of Corn- 
wall, in the province of Ontario, or at such other place in Canada as is 
from time to time determined by by-law of the Company. 

5. The Company may, — 

(a) construct, maintain, operate, use and manage conduits, tunnels, 
transmission lines, structures, buildings, machinery, plant, appliances, 
instruments and devices, and erect and maintain poles and towers, and 
lay and maintain pipes, cables, wires or other conductors and connect 
them with similar lines in other provinces and with similar lines in the 
United States for the purpose of importation into Canada only; 



118 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

(b) acquire by purchase or lease electricity and electric, pneumatic 
or other current, power or force, and may supply, distribute, sell, lease, 
contract for or otherwise dispose thereof for the purposes of light, heat 
or power or any other purpose for which electricity or electric or other 
power, current or energy can be used; 

(c) acquire such lands, easements and privileges as are necessary 
for the purposes of its undertaking. 

2. In case of any dispute or difference as to the price to be 
charged for power or electrical or other energy for any of the 
purposes in this Act mentioned, or as to the methods of dis- 
tribution thereof, or as to the time within which it shall be 
furnished, or as to the quantity to be furnished, or as to the 
conditions upon which it shall be furnished for use, such dispute or 
difference shall be settled by the Board of Railway Commissioners for 
Canada on the application of any user of or applicant for power, or elec- 
trical or other energy transmitted or produced by the Company, or upon 
the application of the Company. The said Board of Railway Commis- 
sioners for Canada, on the application of any person or municipality, or 
on the application of the Government of Canada, or of the Government 
of the province of Ontario, or of the Government of the province of 
Quebec, shall fix the price from time to time for periods not to extend 
over five years, at which the Company may purchase electricity and 
electric, pneumatic or other current, power or force, and shall fix the 
prices from time to time for periods not to extend over five years at 
which the St. Lawrence Power Company incorporated by Chapter one 
hundred and eleven of the statutes of 1901, shall sell or lease such 
electricity and electric, pneumatic or other current, power or force to 
the Company. 

3. Section 247 of The Railway Act shall apply to the works and 
undertaking of the Company. 

6. The Company may construct or acquire by lease, purchase or 
otherwise, and operate in connection with the works, liaes and business 
of the Company and for the purposes thereof, lines of telegraph or tele- 
phone or other works and means of communication. 

7. Except as in this Act otherwise expressly provided, the provi- 
sions of The Electricity Inspection Act, 1907, shall apply to the Company 
and its undertaking. 

8. The Directors may from time to time issue bonds of the 
Company for the purpose of raising money for prosecuting the said 
undertaking, which bonds shall be a charge upon the works, franchise, 
plant and undertaldng of the Company, and shall be payable at such 
time and places, and be sold at such price as the Directors determine, 
and the Company may mortgage or pledge any such bonds for 
advances of money to be made thereon. 



ST. LAWRENCE POWER TRANSMISSION GO'S CHARTER 119 

9. The powers conferred upon the Company by this Act shall not 
be exercisable until the Company has first submitted to the Governor 
in Council plans of such works, and has received his assent thereto. 

10. The Railway Act, so far as applicable, and when not incon- 
sistent with this Act, shall apply to the Company and its imdertaking. 

(2.) Wherever in The Railway Act the word "company" occurs, 
it shall include the Company hereby incorporated. 

(3.) Wherever in The Railway Act the word "railway" occurs 
it shall, unless the context otherwise requires, in so far as it applies 
to this Act or to the Company, mean the works authorized by this 
Act to be constructed. 

(4.) The expropriation powers hereby conferred Upon the Com- 
pany shall only be exercised in the counties of Frontenac, Leeds, 
Grenville, Dundas, Stormont and Glengarry, and the city of Kingston, 
in the province of Ontario, and in the counties of Soulanges, 
Vaudreuil and Jacques Cartier, and the city of Montreal, in the 
province of Quebec, and for the purpose of its transmission line 
only. 

(5.) In the event of the Company exercising the rights of ex- 
propriation hereby given for the purpose of acquiring land for its right 
of way such land must be acquired in fee simple. 

11. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to empower the Com- 
pany to export electricity or electric or other power to the United States. 

12. The Governor in Council shall not give his approval to the 
construction of any further canals, watercourses, raceways, dams, wing 
dams, sluices or other works on the river St. Lawrence by the St. 
Lawrence Power Company, under the provisions of chapter one 
hundred and eleven of the statutes of 1901, or otherwise, nor agree to 
or approve of any terms or conditions respecting the diversion of 
water or power from Canada, the consideration and rate to be paid 
therefor, the location of all dams and generating plant, the reservation 
of power for use in Canada, the safeguarding of Canadian canals, 
adjacent lands and navigation, the procuring of consent thereto from 
the British Government under the Ashburton treaty or other treaty, 
unless and untU the plans, specifications, and all terms and conditions 
shall have been first submitted to and approved by Parliament. 

13. Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to constitute an approval 
by Parliament of any future development of water-power by erecting a 
dam in or across the St. Lawrence river under the Chapter one 
hundred and eleven of the statutes of 1901, intituled "An Act to 
incorporate the St. Lawrence Power Company," or otherwise; nor 
shall the Company hereby incorporated be authorized to transmit power 
generated by the St. Lawrence Power Company other than the power 



120 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

generated by and in connection with the works already constructed 
by the said St. Lawrence Power Company. 

14. The construction of the works of the Company shall be com- 
menced within one year and completed within three years after the date 
of the proclamation of the Governor in Council bringing this Act into 
force, and if the said works are not so commenced and completed the 
powers hereby granted shall cease as respects so much of the said 
works as then remains uncompleted. 

15. Sections 136, 137 and 141 of Part II. of The Companies Act 
shall not apply to the Company. 

16. This Act shall come into force on a day to be named by proc- 
lamation of the Governor in Council. 




APPENDIX X 

ACT OF INCORPORATION 

Of THE St. Lawrence Power Company. 1 Edward "VII. Chap. 111. 
Assented to by the House of Commons of Canada, 23rd 
May, 1901 

An Act to Incorporate the St. Lawrence Power Company 

WHEREAS a petition has been presented praying that it be en- 
acted as hereinafter set forth, and it is expedient to grant the 
prayer of the said petition: Therefore His Majesty, by and with the 
advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, 
enacts as follows: 

1. Michael Patrick Davis, Duncan Bjo-on McTavish, D'Arcy 
Scott, Robert J. Devlin and William Hepburn Curie, all of the city of 
Ottawa, in the county of Carleton, and province of Ontario, together 
with such persons as become shareholders in the company, are incor- 
porated under the name of the " St. Lawrence Power Company," here- 
inafter called "the Company." 

2. The persons named in section 1 of this Act are constituted 
the first or provisional directors of the Company, a majority of whom 
shall form a quorum; and they may forthwith open stock books and 
procure subscriptions of stock for the undertaking, and receive pay- 
ments on account of stock subscribed, and carry on the business of the 
Company. 

3. The capital stock of the Company shall be one million five 
hundred thousand dollars, divided into shares of one hundred dollars 
each, and may be called up by the directors from time to time as they 
deem necessary, but no one call shall exceed ten per cent, on the 
shares subscribed. 

4. The directors may, with the approval of the Governor in 
Council, after the whole capital stock has been subscribed for, and fifty 
per cent, paid in thereon in cash, increase the amount of the capital 
stock from time to time to an amount not exceeding five million dollars, 
but the stock shaU not be so increased until a resolution of the board 
of directors, authorizing such increase, has first been submitted to and 
approved of by a special general meeting of the shareholders duly 
called for that purpose, at which meeting shareholders representing at 
least two-thirds of the capital stock are present or represented by 
proxy. 



122 COMMISSION OP CONSERVATION 

5. The head office of the Company shall be in the city of Ottawa, 
in the province of Ontario, or such other place in Canada as the directors 
from time to time determine by by-law. 

6. As soon as twenty-five per cent, of the capital stock has been 
subscribed and ten per cent, of the amount has been paid into some 
chartered bank in Canada, the provisional directors shall call a meeting 
of the shareholders of the Company at the city of Ottawa, at which 
meeting the shareholders present or represented by proxy, who have 
paid not less than ten per cent, on the amount of shares subscribed for 
by them, shall elect a board of five directors. 

(2) Notice of such meeting shall be sufficiently given by mailing 
the same, postage prepaid, to the last known post-office address of each 
shareholder at least ten days previous to the date of such meeting. 

7. The annual general meeting of the shareholders shall be held 
on the third Monday in September in each year, or on such other day 
in each year as the directors from time to time determine by by-law. 

(2) At such meeting the shareholders present or represented by 
proxy who have paid all calls due on their shares, shall choose five 
persons to be directors of the Company, one or more of whom may be 
paid directors and a majority of whom shall be a quorum. 

(3) Only shareholders eligible to vote may hold proxies at any 
meeting of the Company. 

(4) Every director shall hold at least ten shares of the capital stock 
of the Company. 

8. The Company may — 

(a) manufacture, use, supply and dispose of electricity, water and 
gas, and water, hydraulic or other power, by means of wires, cables, 
pipes, conduits, machinery or other appliances; and construct, main- 
tain and operate works for the production, sale and distribution thereof, 
and for the purposes aforesaid may construct, acquire, use, maintain 
and operate canals, water-courses, raceways and water-powers in or 
adjacent to the St. Lawrence river on the north side thereof at any 
points eastward from Hoople creek, in the county of Stormont, in the 
province of Ontario, to the eastern end of the Soulanges canal, and 
construct dams, wing-dams, sluices, conduits and buildings in connec- 
tion therewith: Provided that the works hereby authorized shall not 
be commenced until the plans thereof have first been submitted to and 
approved of by the Governor in Council; 

(b) acquire patent rights, letters patent of invention, processes, 
options, and other rights and privileges aaid again dispose thereof; 

(c) manufacture, acquire and dispose of pulp-wood, pulp or the 
products thereof; 



ST. LAWRENCE POWER COMPANY'S CHARTER 123 

(d) manufacture and sell calcium carbide and all products produced 
in its manufacture; acetylene gas and other gases and products manu- 
factured from calcium carbide; 

(e) manufacture and deal in all minerals and the by-products 
thereof; construct furnaces, ovens and retorts for the reduction of such 
minerals; 

(/) construct tramways, wharfs, docks, offices and all necessary 
buildings, and purchase, hire, build and repair vessels required for the 
business of the Company; 

ig) construct, acquire and operate by electricity, steam or other 
motive power, vessels for the transportation of passengers and freight, 
or towing of barges or other vessels in the river St. Lawrence and the 
lakes, canals and rivers connected therewith. 

9. The Company, for the purpose of constructing and main- 
taining its works, may, with the consent of the municipal council or 
other authority having jurisdiction over the same, enter on any high- 
way, square or other public place, and as often as the Company thinks 
proper, may, with the like consent, break up and open any highway or 
public place, subject however to the following provisions: 

(a) The Company shall not interfere with the public right of travel, 
or in any way obstruct the entrance to any door or gateway, or free 
access to any building; 

(6) The Company shall not permit any wire to be less than twenty- 
two feet above such highway or public place; 

(c) All poles shaU be as nearly as possible straight and perpen- 
dicular, and shall, in cities, be painted, if so required by any by-law of 
the council; 

(d) The Company shall not be entitled to damages on account of 
its poles or wires being cut by direction of the officer in charge of the 
fire brigade at any fire if, in the opinion of such officer, it is advisable 
that such poles or wires be cut; 

(e) The Company shall not cut down or mutilate any shade, fruit 
or ornamental tree without the approval of the corporation of the 
municipality in which it is situate, and then only so far as it may be 
necessary; 

(f) The opening up of streets for the erection of poles, or for 
carrying wires under ground, shall be subject to the direction and 
approval of such person as the municipal council appoints and shall be 
done in such manner as the said council directs; the council may also 
designate the places where such poles shall be erected; and such street, 
square or other public place shall, without any unnecessary delay, be 
restored, as far as possible, to its former condition, by and at the expense 
of the Company; 



124 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

(g) In case efficient means are devised for carrying telegraph or 
telephone wires under ground, no Act of Parliament requiring the 
Company to adopt such means, and abrogating the right given by this 
section to carry lines on poles, shall be deemed an infringement of the 
privileges granted by this Act, and the Company shall not be entitled 
to damages therefor; 

(h) Every person employed upon the work of erecting or repairing 
any line or instrument of the Company shall have conspicuously attached 
to his dress a badge on which are legibly inscribed the name of the Com- 
pany and a number by which he can be readily identified; 

(i) Nothing herein contained shall be deemed to authorize the 
Company to enter upon any private property for the purpose of erecting, 
maintaining or repairing any of its works, without the previous assent 
of the owner or occupant of the property for the time being; 

(j) If, for the purpose of removing buildings, or in the exercise of 
the public right of travel, it is necessary that the said wires or poles be 
temporarily removed, by cutting or otherwise, the Company shall, at 
its own expense, upon reasonable notice in writing from any person 
requiring it, remove such wires and poles, and in default of the Com- 
pany so doing, such person may remove such wires and poles at the 
expense of the Company. The said notice may be given either at any 
office of the Company, or to any agent or officer of the Company in the 
municipality wherein are the wires or poles required to be removed, or, 
in the case of a municipality wherein there is no such agent or officer, 
then, either at the head office, or to any agent or officer of the Company 
in the nearest or any adjoining municipality to that in which such 
wires or poles are; 

(k) The Company shall be responsible for all damage which it 
causes to ornamental, shade, or fruit trees, and otherwise for all unneces- 
sary damage which it causes in carrying out or maintaining any of its 
said works. 

10. The directors, under the authority of a resolution of the 
shareholders passed at any special meeting called for the purpose, or 
at any annual meeting at which shareholders representing at least two- 
thirds in value of the issued capital stock of the Company are present 
or represented by proxy, may, from time to time at their discretion, 
borrow moneys for the purposes of the Company, and secure the repay- 
ment thereof in such manner and upon such terms and conditions as 
they see fit, and for this purpose may mortgage, pledge, hypothecate 
or charge the assets and property of the Company: Provided that the 
aggregate amount so borrowed shall not, at any time, be greater than 
seventy-five per cent, of the actual paid-up stock of the Company; but 
this limitation shall not apply to commercial paper discounted by the 
Company. 



ST. LAWRENCE POWER COMPANY'S CHARTER 125 

11. The Company may acquire and operate the works of any 
company having powers wholly or in part similar to the powers of the 
Company, and may acquire the capital stock, bonds, rights, franchises, 
powers, privileges or properties of any such company, and may enter 
into agreements for an amalgamation with such company, on such 
terms and conditions as are agreed upon, and subject to such restrictions 
as to the directors seem fit; provided that such agreement has been 
first approved by two-thirds of the votes at a special general meeting 
of the shareholders duly caUed for the purpose of considering it, at which 
meeting shareholders representing at least two-thirds in value of the 
stock are present or represented by proxy, and that such agreement 
has also received the sanction of the Governor in Council. 

(2) Such sanction shall not be signified until after notice of the 
proposed application therefor has been published in the manner and 
for the time set forth in section 239 of The Railway Act, and also for a 
like period in one newspaper in each of the counties in which the works 
of the Company are situate, and in which a newspaper is published. 

(3) A duplicate of the agreement referred to in subsection 1 of 
this section shall, within thirty days after its execution, be filed in the 
office of the Secretary of State of Canada, and notice thereof shall be 
given by the Company in The Canada Gazette, and the production of 
The Canada Gazette containing such notice shall be prima facie evidence 
of the requirements of this Act having been complied with. 

12. The directors of the Company elected by the shareholders may 
make, and issue as paid-up stock, shares in the Company, whether sub- 
scribed for or not, and may allot and hand over such stock in payment 
for property, plant or materials, of any kind acquired by the Company; 
and such issue and allotment of stock shall be binding on the Company, 
and such stock shall not be assessable for calls. 

13. The powers granted by this Act shall cease and be null and void 
unless works of the Company capable of producing at least one thousand 
horse-power are completed within three years from the passing of this 
Act, and notwithstanding anything contained in any Act of Parliament. 

14. Lands actually required for the construction and main- 
tenance of the power-canals, water-courses, raceways and reservoirs 
necessary for the utilization or operation of water-powers belonging to 
the Company may be taken and acquired by the Company; and to this 
end, after a plan of such lands has been approved of by the Governor 
in Council, all the provisions of The Railway Act which are applicable 
to such taking and acquisition shall, so far as they are applicable thereto, 
apply as if they were included in this Act; and all the provisions of The 
Railway Act which are applicable shall, in like manner apply to the 
ascertainment and the payment of the compensation for, or damages 



126 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

to, lands arising out of such taking and acquisition, or the construction 
or maintenance of the works of the Company, or the exercise of any of 
the powers of the Company under this section. 

(2) This section shall apply only to lands in or adjacent to the St. 
Lawrence river between the mouth of Hoople creek and the eastern 
end of Sheek island, and to land not more than two miles distant from 
the Soulanges canal and lying between the eastern end of the Soulanges 
canal and a point not more than five miles in a westerly direction from 
the eastern terminus of the Soulanges canal. 

15. The Companies Clauses Act when not inconsistent with the 
provisions of this Act shall apply to the Company. 




APPENDIX XI (a) 

REPORTS 

Presented to His Excellency The Goveenoe General in Council, 
BY Messes. Andeeson, Butlee and Lapleue, chief engineees 

EESPECTrVELY, OF THE DePAETMENTS OF MaEINE AND FiSHEEIES, 

Railways and Canals and Public Woeks. These are the 
Conclusions of the Depaetmental Board Appointed to 
Report on the Proposal to dam the Long Sault Rapids 

FIRST REPORT OF GOVERNMENT ENGINEERS 

Ottawa, December 15, 1908 

Sir: 

We have the honour to report in regard to the petition of the St. 
Lawrence Power Company, Limited, to His Excellency the Governor 
General in Council, for permission to erect certain dams on the St. Law- 
rence river as follows: 

First: A rough computation shows that it is possible to develop, 
approximately, 800,000 effective horse-power by the proposed dams; 
and that the creation of such an enormous quantity of power would 
be of very great importance to the district in question, as experience 
has shown that in the proximity of such large developments of power, 
great industries are created; towns and cities grow up. The objections 
which arise, however, are somewhat serious. First: The plans as sub- 
mitted, contemplate interfering with the present Cornwall canal; and 
this we take it, cannot be tolerated. The integrity of the Cornwall 
canal must be preserved, without any alteration whatever; and, con- 
sequently the plans submitted Would have to be modified so as to pre- 
serve intact this most important navigation channel. It is true that 
the Company contemplates the building of a separate lock above lock 20 
to enter into the proposed new level, but such a lock requires navigation 
to pass along parallel with an over-flow weir dam, which, necessarily, 
must take care of the great bulk of the discharge of the river; in con- 
sequence thereof, the side currents would be so great as to render naviga- 
tion exceedingly dangerous. Furthermore, an accident to any of the 
dams would throw the whole system of navigation out of gear for a long 
time. 

Second: The plans contemplate a single lift lock on the American 
side, in the south channel, to take the place of the Cornwall canal. The 



128 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

channel from this proposed lock to the foot of Cornwall island has such a 
swift current, and is so crooked as to render such a route dangerous; 
and it is not, therefore, in our opinion, a suitably located lock, having 
regard to the difficulties named. It does not seem needful at this stage 
to point out a more suitable site where a lock might be had, and where 
difficulties of navigation would be lessened. 

Third : The upper dam provided for in the proposed plans, running 
from the Long Sault island to the upper end of Barnhart island, is prac- 
tically parallel with the thread of the stream, and is intended to be an 
over-flow weir, with ten Stoney sluices at each end of it. There can be 
no doubt whatever that this dam will, of necessity, have to take care 
of the regulation of the level of the river above it. The lower dam at 
the easterly end, which is in the form of the letter "A", connecting the 
mainland on the Ontario side with the lower end of Barnhart island, 
would not, in our opinion, be of material assistance for regulation. 

Every advantage has been taken of natural channels for the pur- 
pose of providing an economical development of the power, practically 
closing up the entire Canadian channel by this means and throwing the 
whole of the discharge into the American channel on the south of Barn- 
hart island, the water to the north of Barnhart island being thrown into 
a pool. 

The discharge of the upper dam in conjunction with the Stoney 
sluices would be of such volume, and the cross current so great, as to 
make it risky for a steamer to attempt to pass parallel with this dam, 
through the channel south of Sheek island. 

Fourth: The effect of ice and frazil on the up-stream end of the 
river is one upon which it would be most difficult to express any decided 
opinion. There is no doubt that frazil forms in the Galop rapids, and 
the Rapide Plat : and that a large mass of more or less broken ice floats 
down the river continuously. The channel in the vicinity of BrockviUe 
is usually kept open for the ferry; but after the dam in question has 
been built, a field of broad ice Would be formed above its crest, and it 
will be difficult to say where the small cakes of ice, frazil and anchor 
ice would go, if it did not fill up the space above the dam. The report 
of the Montreal Flood Commission of 1889 states that on the 8th of 
April, two or three feet of board ice, and from ten to twenty-four of 
frazil were found; that between the Lachine rapids and Varennes, in 
March 1887, a distance of twenty miles, there were 99,216,000 cubic 
yards of field ice, and 252,601,000 cubic yards of frazil, and water 
amounting to 467,212,000 cubic yards, or a total of 819,029,000 cubic 
yards; which gives some little idea of the relative proportions. 

The conditions for the creation of frazil were greater in the district 
just above described than in the one we are considering. Nevertheless, 
there is ample opportunity for the creation of great quantities of frazil 



FIRST REPORT OF CANADIAN GOVERNMENT ENGINEERS 129 

and broken fragments of solid ice at the points named, so that the up- 
stream effect likely to be created, is something that no one could very 
well predict; but would, no doubt, be approximately, similar to that 
found by the Commission, with resulting damage at the foot of the 
Rapide Plat and the Galop rapids. 

Fifth: The Richelieu and Ontario Navigation Company run a 
daily line of steamers from Kingston to Montreal, and do a fairly large 
tourist business, which we understand is increasing. One of the fea- 
tures of the trip is running the Long Sault rapids, which, of course, 
Would be destroyed by the proposed dam. Aside from this, we question 
if a boat could make the trip from Kingston to Montreal in a day, pro- 
vided she had to be locked through the Cornwall canal or the proposed 
lock on the American side. Strenuous objections have been raised by 
the interests in question against the project. 

Sixth: The possible destruction of the proposed dam by natural 
forces, or by the malice of any evil-intentioned person; (an earthquake 
might be the means of destroying the dam) certainly, a very few pounds 
of dynamite in the hands of an intelligent man would be most dis- 
astrous. The volume of water which the dam could contain would be 
sufficiently great, if liberated in the form of a wave, to, at any rate, 
destroy the greater portion of the town of Cornwall — certainly the canal, 
or that portion of it below the dam — and without doubt, the means of 
flooding lake St. Francis and a large section of the land on the river 
bank protected by the Hungry Bay dyke; besides unquestionably im- 
perilling the Soulanges canal, as well as the villages fronting the river 
between lake St. Francis and lake St. Louis. Whether the effect of such 
a sudden break would be taken care of in lake St. Francis and lake St. 
Louis, is a question. Experience had on a very much smaller scale 
would lead one to expect that the damage would be continued on 
through the lower portion of Montreal, with the possible destruction of 
the Lachine canal, as well. 

Seventh: The plans show a very small percentage of development 
on the Canadian side: We should judge that over eighty per cent. 
(80%) is contemplated to be developed in the United States; and of 
course, this would be a very unfair distribution of the power in question. 
In any event, should the project receive consideration, considerable 
revision of the plans would have to be made, so as to secure a more 
equitable divisipn of the power development. 

Eighth: A vital point in connection with the whole scheme would 
be that all the plans of the dams, locks, etc., on the proposed works 
must be approved in advance by engineers responsible to Canada and 
to the United States, respectively, and upon which they must agree; 
the detail of the works in question should be passed upon by the joint 
approval of engineers from both countries. Whether this is a practical 



130 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

thing to secure we are unable to say, but it is obvious that the interest 
of Canada is such that no portion of the work in question could be 
allowed to be gone on with unless it received a most strict examination 
and inspection by engineers acting for this country. No doubt, the 
United States authorities would take a similar attitude with regard to 
the question, although their interests are trivial compared with ours, on 
account of the fact that they have so little land on the St. Lawrence 
below the power in question. 

Ninth: No private corporation should be permitted to have under 
its control the regulation of the height of water in such an important 
river as the St. Lawrence. 

We are. Sir, 

Your obedient servants, 

(Signed) WM. P. ANDERSON 

Chief Engineer, Dept. of Marine and Fisheries 

(Signed) M. J. BUTLER 

Chief Engineer, Dept. of Railways and Canals 

(Signed) EUGENE D. LAFLEUR 

Chief Engineer, Dept. of Public Works 




APPENDIX XI (b) 

SECOND REPORT OF GOVERNMENT ENGINEERS 

Ottawa, January 12, 1910 



Sir: 



We have the honour to report in regard to the amended petition of 
the St. Lawrence Power Company Limited, to His Excellency, the 
Governor in Council, for permission to erect certain dams in the St. 
Lawrence river, as follows : 

On December 15, 1908, we reported on the facts as contained in 
the application of the Company at that time., The objections found 
against the original plan have, in a large measure, been remedied by 
the amended proposition. The integrity of the Cornwall canal has been 
preserved. No detail plans have been submitted showing the style of 
dam proposed to be erected; and this, of course, will have to be done 
before the project could be allowed to be entered upon. An approxi- 
mate computation of the horse-power capable of being developed at 
the site of the proposed dams, is about six hundred thousand. The 
creation of such an enormous quantity of power wiU be of the highest 
importance to the district in question. Experience has shown us that 
in the proximity of such a large development of power, great industries 
are created and that towns and cities grow up. We are convinced that 
the project is one worthy of the most serious consideration at the hands 
of the Government. 

The plans contemplate the construction of a lock in the American 
channel, and the objections which were taken against the former 
proposition apply with equal force to the present one, viz. : the approach 
channel to the lock, as it now exists, is a tortuous one, with a swift 
current, and is not, in our opinion, a satisfactory channel. It is our 
opinion, however, that a single lock about one thousand feet long 
between hollow quoins, eighty-five feet wide, with twenty-five feet of 
water on the sill, should be built on the Canadian side : so as to dupUcate 
the Cornwall canal. We believe that if this lock is constructed on 
satisfactory lines, it will, to a considerable extent, eliminate any objec- 
tions the Richelieu & Ontario Navigation Company might reasonably 
have, in being interfered with in their descent of the Long Sault rapids. 
It is also necessary that there should be built a timber slide and all 
necessary piers and booms for the protection of the lumber industry 
and the free use of the navigation of the river for that purpose. 



132 COMraSSION OF CONSERVATION 

The location and position of the power-house and dam on the 
Canadian side would have to be adjusted, when the plans are worked 
out in detail. We have satisfied ourselves that the objections which 
we formulated, with regard to the possible danger in having such a 
large dam in a river like the St. Lawrence, are obviated by the amended 
plan. 

The effect of the board ice and frazil, upon which we laid con- 
siderable stress in our former report, we are convinced need not be 
seriously considered, for the reason that the company is willing to enter 
into an undertaking to not permit board ice to form at the head of the 
dam. They are willing to supply ice breakers to prevent such a 
possibility. 

The plans show a small percentage of development on the Canadian 
side, and the geographical conditions are such that it will be somewhat 
difficult to increase the power plant on the Canadian side to the full 
fifty per cent, which we feel should be preserved for the use of Canada. 
This difficulty, however, may be obviated by the Company undertaking 
to hold in readiness fifty per cent, of the total power developed in the 
river, available for Canadian consumption. No doubt, if the project 
goes through, and the working plans are submitted, a more equitable 
division of the power-plants can be worked out. 

We desire to reiterate the necessity of a complete agreement on 
behaK of the Governments of Canada and the United States as to the 
supervision and control of the plans, specifications and every detaU of 
the works in question. The subsequent operation, in so far as the level 
of the water in the river is concerned, and the regulation of the flow, 
should in like manner be under the joint supervision of an officer from 
both Governments. 

A question has been propounded to us, as to what effect the con- 
struction of such dams as are proposed would likely have upon the 
elevation of the water in the harbour of Montreal. We agree that they 
Would have no effect whatever. 

It must be understood that the present report does not attempt 
to deal with the sites selected for the several dams, or power-houses, or 
other works connected with the scheme. All such matters are to be 
determined later should the general scheme be approved by the 
Government. 

We are. Sir, your obedient servants, 

(Sgd.) M. J. BUTLER 
Chief Engineer, Dept. of Railways and Canals 

(Sgd.) EUGENE D. LAFLEUR 
Chief Engineer, Dept. of Public Works 

(Sgd.) WM. P. ANDERSON 
Chief Engineer, Dept. of Marine and Fisheries 



APPENDIX XII 



CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION 

St. Lawrence River Power Company 

WE, the undersigned, at least two-thirds of whom are citizens of 
the United States and one of us a resident of the state of New 
York, desiring to become a corporation under the laws of the state of 
New York, known as the Stock Corporation Law, and to take and to 
possess the property and franchises of a domestic stock corporation sold 
as hereinafter stated, do hereby make, acknowledge and file this certi- 
ficate for that purpose and certify, as required by section 3 of said law, 
as follows: 

I. That the property and franchises of the St. Lawrence Power 
Company of Massena, New York, a domestic corporation organized 
under and by virtue of Chapter 484 of the Laws of 1896 of the state of 
New York, entitled "An Act to incorporate the St. Lawrence Power 
Company of Massena, St. Lawrence county. New York," as supple- 
mented by Chapter 542 of the laws of 1898 of the state of New York, 
entitled "An Act supplementary to an Act entitled 'An Act to incor- 
porate the St. Lawrence Power Company, of Massena, St. Lawrence 
county, New York,' " were, on the 3rd day of July, 1902, sold under, 
and by virtue of a judgment or decree of the Circuit Court of the United 
States for the Northern District of New York, rendered in an action 
pending in said court between Commercial Trust Company of New 
Jersey and Morristown Trust Company, complainants, and the St. 
Lawrence Power Company of Massena, New York, The Standard Trust 
Company of New York and United States Mortgage and Trust Company, 
defendants, and dated, entered and filed in the clerk's office of the said 
Circuit Court of the United States in the city of Utica, state of New 
York, on the 13th day of May, 1902. That Mark T. Cox, one of the 
undersigned, purchased said property and franchises at such sale, and 
having, as he then verily believed, acquired title to the same in the 
manner prescribed by law, and having associated with himself the 
undersigned, Thomas A. Gillespie, Henry P. Davison, WiUiam J. 
"Wilson and Samuel E. Potter, the undersigned did, on or about the 
eighteenth day of July, 1902, make and file in the office of the 
Secretary of State an instrument purporting to be a certificate of 
incorporation as provided in section 3 of said Stock Corporation 
Law, reference to which certificate, as the same is on file in the office 



134 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

of the Secretary of State, is hereby made. That thereafter and on 
or about the 19th day of August, 1902, an order or decree was 
made in said above-entitled action and entered and filed in the 
office of said clerk of the Circuit Court of the United States for 
the Northern District of New York, vacating the sale of sa'd property 
and franchises and vacating said judgment or decree dated the 13th 
day of May, 1902, by which order or decree made on or about the 
19th day of August, 1902, it appeared that said Mark T. Cox, 
had not acquired title to said property and franchises in the 
manner prescribed by law, and having associated with himself the 
undersigned, Thomas A. Gillespie, Henry P. Davison, William J. 
Wilson and Samuel E. Potter, the undersigned did, on or about the 
eighteenth day of July, 1902, make and file in the office of the Secretary 
of State an instrument purporting to be a certificate of incorporation as 
provided in section 3 of said Stock Corporation Law, reference to 
which certificate, as the same is on file in the office of the Secretary of 
State, is hereby made. That thereafter, and on or about the 19th day 
of August, 1902, an order or decree was made in said above-entitled 
action and entered and filed in the office of said clerk of the Circuit 
Court of the United States for the Northern District of New York, 
vacating the sale of said property and franchises and vacating said 
judgment or decree dated the 13th day of May, 1902, by which order 
or decree made on or about the 19th day of August, 1902, it appeared 
that said Mark T. Cox, had not acquired title to said property and 
franchises in the manner prescribed by law. That, such title not 
having been so acquired, the ffiing of said above-mentioned instrument 
purporting to be a certificate of incorporation, was unauthorized by 
law and void. That thereafter and on the 6th day of November, 1902, 
said property and franchises were again duly sold under and by virtue 
of a judgment or decree rendered in said above-entitled action and 
entered in the office of the clerk of said court on the 18th day of 
September, 1902. 

II. That the following is a brief description of the property thus 
sold: 

One thousand seven hundred and ninety-nine and 70-100 (1799.70) 
acres of land, more or less, situated on the south shore of the St. 
Lawrence river, in the town of Massena, St. Lawrence county. New 
York, and extending to and across the Grasse river in said town and 
county, and more particularly described in said decree hereinbefore 
referred to, together with the canal constructed on, in or over said land 
or part thereof, from a point on the St. Lawrence river, at or near 
Dodge's creek to a point on the Grasse river at or near the said town 
of Massena, with all head-gates, dams, sluices, conduits, power-houses, 
machinery and appurtenances of every kind and nature, together with 



INCORPORATION OF ST. LAWRENCE RIVER POWER CO. 135 

all the rights of way for the said canal or works, and all lands acquired 
by the said St. Lawrence Power Company of Massena, New York, for 
use in connection with the said canal or appurtenant or adjoining thereto, 
and all machinery, fixtures, dredges and other tools, implements and 
movables of every kind acquired for use in connection with the opera- 
tion of the canal and works of the said St. Lawrence Power Company of 
Massena, New York, together with all and singular the tenements, her- 
editaments and appurtenances belonging to the property, or in any- 
wise thereto appertaining, and the reversions, remainders, tolls, incomes, 
rents, issues and profits thereof, and also all the estate, right, title, 
interest, property, possession, claim and demand whatsoever as well in 
law as in equity of the said St. Lawrence Power Company of Massena, 
New York, of, in and to the same, and any and every part thereof, with 
the appurtenances, together with all the rights, privileges and fran- 
chises, corporate, public or municipal, of said St. Lawrence Power 
Company of Massena, New York, pertaining thereto, and all contracts 
and leases made by the said St. Lawrence Power Company of Massena, 
New York, for power to be furnished by the St. Lawrence Power 
Company of Massena, New York. 

III. That at such sale held on the 6th day of November, 1902, 
the undersigned^ Mark T. Cox, became the purchaser of the property 
and franchises sold, has acquired the title thereto in the manner pre- 
scribed by law, and has associated with himself the following persons: 
Thomas A. Gillespie, Henry P. Davison, William J. Wilson and Samuel 
E. Potter. 

IV. That the name of the new corporation intended to be formed 
by the filing of this certificate shall be The St. Lawrence River Power 
Company, and the place where its principal office is to be located is 
Massena, St. Lawrence county, New York. 

V. That the maximum amount of its capital stock shall be seven 
million dollars ($7,000,000), and that the number of shares into which 
the same shall be divided is seventy thousand (70,000) shares of the par 
value of one hundred dollars ($100) each, of which three million five 
hundred thousand dollars ($3,500,000), or thirty-five thousand (35,000) 
shares, shall be common stock, and three million five hundred thousand 
dollars ($3,500,000), or thirty-five thousand (35,000) shares, shall be 
preferred stock. That the rights appertaining to each class of such 
stock shall be as herein specified, to wit: The preferred stock herein 
provided for shall be entitled to receive in each year out of the surplus 
net profits of the corporation a non-cumulative dividend at the rate of 
six per cent., as and when declared by the board of directors of the 
Company, before any dividend shall be set apart or paid upon the 
common stock. After said preferred stock shall have received a dividend 
of six per cent, for any year as above provided, the common stock shall 



136 COMfflSSION OF CONSERVATION 

be entitled to a dividend for the same year, as and when declared by 
said board of directors, up to six per cent, before any further dividend 
for such year shall be declared or paid upon the preferred stock. All 
moneys appropriated to dividends in any year in excess of the dividends 
of six per cent, upon each class of capital stock as above provided shall 
be divided equally per share among the holders of the preferred and 
common stock. In case of the liquidation or dissolution of the corpora- 
tion, holders of preferred stock shall be entitled to be paid in full the par 
value of their shares before any amount shall be paid to holders of 
common stock. Thereafter, holders of common stock shall be entitled 
to be paid in full the par value of their shares before any amount shall 
be further paid upon the preferred stock. The remaining assets and 
funds shall be divided equally per share among the holders of both 
classes of said capital stock. 

VI. *That the number of directors who shall manage the affairs 
of the new corporation shall be five and the names and post-office 
addresses of the directors for the first year are as follows: 
Thomas A. Gillespie .... Massena, New York. 

Mark T. Cox East Orange, New Jersey. 

Henry P. Davison .... Englewood, New Jersey. 

William J. Wilson 40 Wall St., New York, N.Y. 

Samuel E. Potter 40 Wall St. New York N.Y. 

In witness whereof we, the undersigned, the said purchaser and 
his associates, have made this certificate in duplicate and have here- 
unto subscribed our names this 23rd day of December, 1902. 

THOMAS A. GILLESPIE 
MARK T. COX 
HENRY P. DAVISON 
WILLIAM J. WILSON 
SAMUEL E. POTTER 
State op New York, \ 
County of New York, j 

On the 23rd day of December in the year nineteen hundred and two, 
before me personally came, Thomas A. Gillespie, Mark T. Cox, WiUiam 
J. Wilson, Samuel E. Potter and Henry P. Davison, to me known to be 
the individuals described in and who executed the foregoing certificate 
of incorporation, and severally acknowledged that they executed the 
same for the uses and purposes therein expressed. 
FUed and Recorded Dec. 24, 1902 (Seal) THOMAS L. TEN EYGK 
J. B. H. MONGIN Notary Public, No. 76, 

Deputy Secretary of State New York County 

*At a meeting of the directors of the Company held in New York city on the 
19th of June, 1903, the number of the Company's directors was increased from 
five to seven. 



APPENDIX XIII (a) 

CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION 
St. Lawrence Transmission Company 

WE, the undersigned, all being persons of full age, and at least 
two-thirds being citizens of the United States, and one of us a 
resident of the state of New York, desiring to become a corporation for 
the purposes herein specified pursuant to the provisions of Article VI 
of the Transportation Corporations Law of the state of New York do 
hereby certify: 

First. The name of the corporation is to be St. Lawrence 
Transmission Company. 

Second. Its objects are to be to generate, manufacture, buy, 
seU, transmit, use, supply and deal in electricity for producing 
light, heat or power; to carry on the business of lighting by 
electricity or using it for heat or power in counties, cities, towns 
and villages within the state of New York, and the streets, avenues, 
public parks and places thereof; and public and private buildings 
therein; to make, purchase, sell, lease, acquire and dispose of aU 
machines, instruments, apparatus and other equipments for such 
business, and to lay, erect and construct suitable wires or other 
conductors, with the necessary structures, poles, pipes and other 
fixtures and machinery for conducting, transmitting and distribut- 
ing electricity, and to acquire, lease, own and dispose of real estate, 
rights of way, easements, and any other interests in real estate; 

Also to purchase, acquire, hold and dispose of the stocks, 
bonds and other evidences of indebtedness of any corporation, 
domestic or foreign, and to issue in exchange therefor its stock, 
bonds or other obligations, or to guarantee the bonds or obliga- 
tions of any other domestic corporation. 

Third. The amount of its capital stock is to be twenty-five 
thousand dollars ($25,000). 

Fourth. The term of its existence is to be fifty years. 

Fifth. The number of shares of which the stock shall consist 
is 250 shares of the par value of one hundred dollars ($100) each. 

Sixth. The number of directors is to be three. 

Seventh. The names and places of residence of the directors 
who are to serve for the first year are as follows: 
Thomas A. GiUespie, West Orange, New Jersey. 
Mark T. Cox, East Orange, New Jersey. 
WiUiam J. Wilson, 121 West 136th St., New York City. 

Eighth. The names of the towns, villages, cities and counties 
in which the operations of the corporation are to be carried on are: 



138 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

the towns of Massena, Louisville, Norfolk, Waddington, Lisbon, 
Brasher, Stockholm, Madrid, Potsdam, Canton, Oswegatchie, 
DeKalb, Depuyster, Hermon, Morristown, Macomb, Gouverneur, 
Edwards, Fowler, Hammond, Rossie, Fine, Clifton and Pitcaim, 
the villages of Massena, Waddington, Madrid, Norwood, Potsdam, 
Canton, Rensselaer Falls, Heuvelton, Richville, Hermon, Morris- 
town, Gouverneur, Edwards and Talcville, and the city of Ogdens- 
burg, all in the county of St. Lawrence, and the towns of Antwerp, 
Theresa, Alexandria, Philadelphia, Leroy, Parmelia and Water- 
town, and villages of Antwerp, Theresa, Redwood, Alexandria Bay 
and Philadelphia, and the city of Watertown, all in the county of 
Jefferson. 

In witness whereof we have made, signed, acknowledged and 
filed this certificate in duplicate this 16th day of November, 1904. 

THOMAS A. GILLESPIE 
MARK T. COX 
W. J. WILSON 



State of New York, \ 
County of New York f 



ss.: 



On this 16th day of November, 1904, before me personally came 
Thomas A. Gillespie, Mark T. Cox and William J. Wilson to me known 
to be the persons described in and who made and signed the foregoing 
certificate, and severally duly acknowledged to me that they made, 
signed and executed the same for the uses and purposes therein set forth. 

ARTHUR W. CLEMENT 

Notary Public, Kings County 

FDed and Recorded Nov. 21, 1904 

J. B. H. MONGIN 

Deputy Secretary of State 



APPENDIX XIII (b) 



CERTIFICATE 

Giving Consent of Stockholders to Increase the Number of 
Directors of the St. Lawrence Transmission Company 

WE, the undersigned, being all the stockholders of The St. Law- 
rence Transmission Company, a stock corporation organized 
and existing under the Laws of the state of New York, do hereby 
consent that the number of directors of said corporation be increased 
from three to seven, this written consent being made pursuant to the 
provisions of Article II, Section 21, of the Stock Corporation Law. 

Dated, February 26th, 1907. ^, , 

' J ' , No. of 

shares owned 

The St. Lawrence River Power Co., per R. E. Withers, Treasurer . . 247 

R. B. MeUon 1 

Charles M. Hall 1 

Arthur V. Davis 1 



250 



State of Pennsylvania, \ 

ss ' 
County of Westmoreland. J 

G. R. Gibbons, being duly sworn, deposes and says: That he is the 
Secretary of St. Lawrence Transmission Company, the corporation men- 
tioned in the annexed instrument; that he is the custodian of the stock 
book containing the names of the stockholders of said corporation; that 
The St. Lawrence River Power Co., Charles M. Hall, R. E. Withers, Jr., 
Treasurer, R. B. Mellon, Arthur V. Davis, the persons who have signed 
the annexed instrument, are all the stockholders of said corporation, 
and that they are the holders of the entire capital stock of said cor- 
poration issued and outstanding. 

tZr. *° ^frj^' ^^. an. \ G- R- GIBBONS 

26th day of February, 1907. / 

(Seal) E. D. CREE, 

Notary Public. 



APPENDIX XIV 

CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION 

OF THE MaSSENA ElECTEIC LiGHT AND PoWER COMPANT 

WE, the undersigned, all being persons of full age and all being 
citizens of the United States and residents of the state of New 
York, desiring to become a corporation for the purposes herein specified, 
pursuant to the provisions of the Transportation Corporations Law, 
Article VI, do hereby certify: 

First. The name of the corporation is to be " The Masseaa 
Electric Light and Power Company." 

Second. Its objects are to be manufacturing and using 
electricity for producing light, heat and power, and in lighting 
streets, avenues, public parks and places, and public and private 
buildings of cities, villages and towns within this State, including 
the village and town of Massena in the county of St. Lawrence and 
state of New York and the adjoining country. The corporation 
shall also have power to purchase, acquire, hold and dispose of the 
stocks, bonds and other evidences of indebtedness of any corpora- 
tion, domestic or foreign, and issue in exchange therefor its stock, 
bonds, or other obligations. 

Third. The amount of its capital stock is to be Ten Thousand 
DoUars ($10,000). 

Fourth. The term of its existence is to be fifty (50) years. 

Fifth. The number of shares of which the capital stock shall 
consist is to be one hundred (100). 

Sixth. The number of its directors is to be five (5). 

Seventh. The names and places of residence of the directors 
who are to serve for the first year are as follows: 

Names Places of Residence 

Thomas H. Gillespie 526 Fifth Avenue, Borough of Man- 
hattan, New York, N.Y. 

Robert A. Johnston 35 "West 25th Street, Borough of 

Manhattan, New York, N.Y. 

Robert Swan Massena, New York. 

Edward M. Stothers. Port Richmond, Borough of Rich- 
mond, New York, N.Y. 

Henry W. Merwin 50 Willow Street, Borough of Brook- 
lyn, New York, N.Y. 
Eighth. The name of the town and county in which the 

operations of the corporation are to be carried on, is the town of 

Massena and county of St. Lawrence. 



CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION 141 

In Witness Whereof, we have made, signed and acknowledged 
this certificate in duplicate this 26th day of January, 1899. 

THOS. H. GILLESPIE 
ROBERT A. JOHNSTON 
ROBERT SWAN 

State of New York, 1 

SS' 

County of New York, f 

On this 30th day of January, in the year one thousand eight hundred 
and ninety-nine, before me personally came Thomas H. Gillespie, 
Robert A. Johnston and Robert Swan, to me severally known to be the 
persons described in and who made and signed the foregoing certificate, 
and severally duly acknowledged to me that they had made, signed and 
executed the same for the uses and purposes therein set forth. 

HOWARD HASBROUCK 

Notary Public 
N. Y. County 




APPENDIX XV 

CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION 
New York and Ontario Power Company 

WE, the undersigned, all being persons of full age and all being 
citizens of the United States, and residents of the state of New 
York, desiring to become a corporation for the purposes herein specified, 
pursuant to the Provisions of Article (6) six of the Transportation 
Corporations Law, of the state of New York, do hereby certify as fol- 
lows, to wit: 

First. The name of the corporation is to be " New York and 
Ontario Power Company." 

Second : Its objects are to be manufacturing, using and trans- 
mitting electricity for producing light, heat or power and in lighting 
streets, avenues, public parks and places, and public and private 
buildings of cities, villages and towns within this State. The 
names of the towns, villages, cities and counties in which the 
operations of the corporation are to be carried on are as follows: 

The villages of Malone, Tupper Lake and Saranac, in the 
county of Franklin, state of New York; the city of Plattsburgh in 
the county of Clinton, state of New York; the villages of W?id- 
dington, Madrid, Canton, Gouverneur, and Potsdam, in the county 
of St. Lawrence, state of New York; the city of Ogdensburg, in the 
county of St. Lawrence, state of New York; the city of Watertown 
in the county of Jefferson, state of New York; the villages of 
Adams and Carthage in the county of Jefferson, state of New York; 
the village of Booneville in the county of Oheida, state of New 
York; the cities of Rome and Utica, in the county of Oneida, state 
of New York; the city of Syracuse, in the county of Onondaga, 
state of New York; the city of Oswego, in the county of Oswego, 
state of New York. 

Third. The amount of its capital stock is to be Two Million 
($2,000,000.00) Dollars. 

Fourth. The term of its existence is to be fifty (50) years. 

Fifth. The number of shares of which the capital stock shall 
consist is to be Twenty Thousand Shares, of the par value of One 
Hundred ($100) Dollars, each. 



Note. — At the meeting of the stockholders of the Company, held in New York 
January, 1908, the number of the Company's directors was increased from three 
to nine. In the application to make this increase in the number of directors, the 
stockholders were declared to be: D. J. Criohton, Jr., owner of one share; 
WiUiam F. Burt, owner of one share; G. H. Meldrum, owner of eighteen shares; 
J. Wesley Allison, owner of 1,480 shares. 



CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION 143 

Sixth. The number of directors is to be three. 

Seventh. The names and place of residence of the directors 
who are to serve for the first year are as follows, viz. : 

David J. Grichton, Jr., 17 Elizabeth st. Ogdensburg, N.Y. 

John W. Liston, 29 Fayette St., Ogdensburg, N.Y. 

William F. Burt, 32 King St., Ogdensburg, N.Y. 

Eighth. The principal business office of the corporation is 
to be located in the village of Waddington, St. Lawrence county, 
state of New York. 

In Witness Whereof, we have made, signed and acknowledged 
this certificate ia duplicate this 11th day of April, 1906. 

DAVID J. GRICHTON, Jr. 



JOHN W. LISTON 
WILLIAM F. BURT 



State of New York "(^ 

GoxJNTT op St. Lawrence J 



ss: 



On this 11th, day of April 1906, before me personally came David 
J. Grichton, John W. Liston and William F. Burt, to me severally known 
to be the persons described in and who made and signed the foregoing 
certificate and severally and duly acknowledged to me that they had 
made, signed and executed the same for the uses and purposes therein 
set forth. 

DANIEL M. SPRATT 

Notary Public 

Filed and Recorded April 18, 1906 

JOHN F. O'BRIEN 

Secretary of State 



APPENDIX XVI 



BILL H.R. 22207 

Presented in the United States House of Representatives 
62nd Congress, Second Session, March 21st, 1912, by Mr. B. G. 
Humphreys of Mississippi. A Bill to Regulate the Develop- 
ment OF Hydro-Electric Power in the Navigable Waterways 
of the United States 

BE it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled. That hereafter, 
when permission is granted by Congress for the development of hydro- 
electric power by private enterprise with the surplus water at any lock 
and dam constructed by authority of Congress in any navigable water of 
the United States, the permit therefor, unless otherwise provided by 
Congress in the grant, shall be upon the terms and subject to the pro- 
visions of this Act. ' 
Sec. 2. That no person, firm, or corporation, its successors or as- 
signs, which may hereafter be authorized by the United States to de- 
velop hydro-electric power with the surplus water at any lock and dam 
constructed under the authority of Congress in any navigable water of 
the United States, shall be permitted to construct, maintain, own, or 
operate in connection with such dam any electrical power stations or 
other structures for the development of hydro-electric power for in- 
dustrial or other purposes unless and until such person, firm, or cor- 
poration has received a permit therefor from the Secretary of War and 
shall have entered into a contract with the Secretary of War for the 
purposes of carrying out the stipulations and performances heremafter 
set out, and shall have executed the bond required by this Act. 

Sec. 3. That before any permit shall be issued to any person, 
firm, or corporation to develop hydro-electric power with the surplus 
Water at any lock and dam constructed by authority of Congress in any 
navigable water of the United States the Secretary of War shall enter 
into contract with such person, firm, or corporation, and shall require 
bond with good and sufficient sureties, to be approved by him, con- 
ditioned upon the faithful performance of the stipulations of said con- 
tract, and in the event of the breach of any of the conditions thereof the 
full penalty of such bond shall thereby become forfeited to the United 
States, and proper proceedings to this end shall be instituted under the 
direction of the Attorney General upon request of the Secretary of War. 



BILL, H.R. 22207 145 

Sec. 4. That the contract herein required shall provide : 
(a) That the grantee shall pay to the United States an annual rental 
of not less than one dollar per horse-power developed by the water so 
used. 

(6) That the rate fixed for the annual rental shall continue in force 
for a period of ten years from a date to be fixed in the permit, which 
date shall be not later than the date upon which the grantee, under the 
terms of the permit, is to begin the development of hydro-electric power. 
That every ten years thereafter the annual rental shall be readjusted 
for the ensuing ten-year period, and if for any reason the Secretary of 
War and the grantee fail to agree upon a new rate for the ensuing ten- 
year period then, and in that event, the rate for such ensuing ten-year 
period shall be double the rate paid during the preceding ten-year 
period: Provided, That such rental rate shall not be unreasonable or 
confiscatory: Provided further, That if the courts hold the rate fixed 
by law to be unreasonable the court so holding may fix a reasonable rate 
and thereafter the rate so fixed shall be the annual rental for that ten- 
year period. That at the end of each ten-year period, and before 
the annual rate to be paid by the grantee has been fixed, the Secretary 
of War shall ascertain how much hydro-electric power can economically 
be developed, and the annual rental thereafter shall be based upon the 
amount of hydro-electric power so ascertained to be possible of econom- 
ical development. 

(c) That the Secretary of War shall have free access to all books 
of the grantee and all other records necessary for ascertaining and cal- 
culating the amount of power developed and possible of develop- 
ment by the grantee with the surplus water at such lock and dam, 
and the rates and prices at which such power is sold by the grantee. 

(d) That the grantee, if a corporation, shall have incorporated in its 
charter (and if a person or firm other than a corporation, shall agree 
by contract to) a provision requiring it to abide by whatever reasonable 
regulation of the rates and of the service may be prescribed by the State 
wherein the power is developed and sold, or of any delegated agency of 
the State, whether that agency be a State commission, municipality, 
or other local governing body. 

(e) That whenever the hydro-electric power produced with the 
surplus water at any lock and dam constructed by authority of Con- 
gress enters into interstate commerce the grantee shall agree to abide 
by whatever reasonable regulation of its rates and of its service may 
be prescribed by the Secretary of War. 

(/) That no person, firm, or corporation, or any partner or stock- 
holder in any firm or corporation, having a permit from the United 
States to develop hydro-electric power with the surplus water at any 
lock or dam in any navigable water of the United States, shall hold 

10 



146 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

stock in any other corporation which is engaged in or has power under 
its charter to engage in the development and sale of hydro-electric 
power, or shall have or hold any interest or property in any other 
way in the development of hydro-electric power for lease or sale at any 
other place. 

(g) That no person, firm, or corporation under contract with the 
United States under the provisions of this Act shall enter into any agree- 
ment or understanding whatsoever with any other person, firm, or cor- 
poration which is engaged in the development, sale, transmission, or 
delivery of hydro-electric power as to the price to be charged for the 
power so developed, sold, transmitted, or delivered, or as to the terms 
or conditions of such development, sale, transmission, or delivery, or as 
to the amount of power to be developed, sold, transmitted, or delivered, 
or as to the number of hours its plant shall be operated, or as to the 
wages to be paid its operatives. 

(h) That no person, firm, or corporation having a permit to develop 
hydro-electric power under the provisions of this Act shall sell or deliver 
any power so developed to any transmission company, or sell or deliver 
more than twenty-five per'centum of the power developed to any one 
person, firm, or corporation without having first obtained the written 
consent of the Secretary of War. 

(i) That the grantee shall furnish and deliver, free of cost to the 
United States, all power necessary for the lighting and operation of the 
locks and dams and for the lighting of the Government grounds and 
houses situated at such locks and dams. 

(j) That the grantee shall have ingress and egress over the Govern- 
ment lands for the operation of its plants and works and the right to use 
the Government lands at or near the said works for the erection of power- 
houses and appurtenances in connection therewith, subject to the ap- 
proval of and regulation by the Secretary of War. 

(A;) That in the exercise of the permission granted above, the 
grantee shall conform to such regulations as may be imposed by the 
Secretary of War for the protection of the navigation and property and 
other interests of the United States. 

(I) That the United States shall not be liable to the grantee for the 
failure of the water-power from any cause whatsoever, and the work 
and improvements provided for shall be executed under the direction 
and with the approval of the Chief of Engineers and Secretary of War, 
the structures provided for being always subject to the provisions and 
requirements of this Act, and to such reasonable stipulations as may be 
imposed by Congress or by the Secretary of War for the protection of 
navigation and property and other interests of the United States. 

(m) That nothing shall be done by the grantee in the use of the 
water at the dam or otherwise to interfere with or in any way impede or 



BILL, H.R. 22207 147 

retard the operations of the locks or the proper and complete navigation 
of the waterway at all times, nor in any way to interfere with the use or 
control of the same by the United States, or the maintenance of the water 
surface above the dam at the established minimum pool level, and the 
Secretary of War shall prescribe the regulations to govern the use of 
such water-power and the operations of the plants and force in connec- 
tion therewith, so far as the same applies to the operation of the locks. 

(n) That all repairs, renewals, and other necessary expenditures 
upon the works which the grantee shall be allowed to construct exclusively 
for the use of power generation shall be made by the grantee so that 
their condition shall at no time interfere with the interests of navigation; 
and whenever, in the opinion of the Secretary of War, the condition of 
said works endangers the interests of navigation he shall notify the 
grantee to repair same, and if the grantee shall not immediately comply 
with the demand of the Secretary of War to make such repairs he may 
enter upon such works and cause them to be repaired, and the expense 
therefor shall constitute a debt against the grantee, its successors or 
assigns, and a lien upon all its property. 

(o) That at the expiration of the term for which the permit is 
granted all of the buildings, plant, and other property of the grantee 
constructed or used in the development of hydro-electric power under 
the provisions of this Act, and all other property and rights appurtenant 
thereto, shall, at the election of the Secretary of War, be transferred 
to the United States by the grantee upon payment by the United States 
of the reasonable value hereof. 

(p) That the Secretary of War, whenever authorized by Congress 
so to do, may, at any time before the expiration of the term for which 
the permit shall have been issued, purchase the buildings, lines, plants, 
and other property of the grantee, at such dams, constructed or used by 
it in the development or transmission of hydro-electric power upon pay- 
ment to the grantee of the reasonable going value thereof; Provided, 
That the value of the franchise or permit issued in pursuance of this 
Act shall not be reckoned as an element of value in determining the 
reasonable value of such buildings, lines, plant, and other property. 

Sec. 5. That before issuing any permit under this Act the Secre- 
tary of War shall advertise in a public manner for bids, from all parties 
who may desire to receive a permit from the United States to develop 
hydro-electric power under this Act, and shall issue his permit to and 
enter into contract with the person, firm, or corporation making the 
best bid: Provided, That in his next annual report the Secretary of 
War shall publish the names of all bidders and the terms of all bids 
which were filed with hipi, and state the reasons which induced him to 
prefer the bid which was accepted. 



148 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

Sec. 6. That no permit shall be issued by the Secretary of War 
for a longer period than fifty years. 

Sec. 7. That the right to alter, amend, or repeal this Act is 
hereby expressly reserved, and the United States shall incur no liability 
for the alteration, amendment, or repeal thereof to the owner or owners 
or any other person interested in any dam or other structures which shall 
have been constructed in accordance with its provisions. 




APPENDIX XVII (a) 



BILL, S. 6795* 

Introduced in the Senate of the United States, 67th Congress, 
Second Session, May 13th, 1912, by Mr. T. E. Burton; Being 
A Bill to Control the Development of Water-Power and the 
Use of Public Lands in Relation thereto, and for other 
Purposes 

BE it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That the At- 
torney General, the Secretary of the Interior, and the Secretary of Agri- 
culture shall, for the purposes herein provided, jointly formulate and 
publish uniform rules and regulations for the use of public lands. The 
head of the executive department having jurisdiction and control of 
lands to be occupied and used in accordance with the provisions 
of this Act and in conformity to the rules and regulations to 
be formulated by virtue of the provisions of this section is 
hereby authorized to lease any part of the public lands of 
the United States, reserved or unreserved, including national 
forests, national parks, national monuments, Indian, military, and 
other reservations, for a period not longer than fifty years, for the pur- 
pose of constructing thereon dams, canals, ditches, pipe lines, flumes, 
tunnels, conduits, reservoirs, power-plants, transmission lines and 
other works necessary or convenient to the development, generation, 
transmission, and utilization of hydro-electric power, which lease shall be 
irrevocable, but which shall become null and void upon breach of any 
of its terms. Each such lease shall be issued, as herein provided for, by 
the head of the executive department having control of the public lands 
to be used and upon a finding by him that such proposed lease is in 
harmony with the public interest and, if within any public forest, park, 
monument, or reservation, consistent with the purposes for which such 
forest, park, monument, or reservation was created. 

Sec. 2. That the rules and regulations made in pursuance of this 
Act, and each lease granted thereunder, shall provide for prompt and 
continuous operation of the water-power; for a reasonable rate of rental 
and the terms of payment of the same; for enforcing compliance on the 
part of the lessee with all laws and regulations made by or under the 
authority of each State or Territory where the power is generated, sold, 



*An Amendment to this Bill is given in Appendix XVII (b) page 152. 



150 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

or used; for negotiations for a renewal not more than ten nor less than 
five years prior to the expiration of the lease; for the valuation of and 
compensation for the physical properties Upon the terminsttion of the 
lease; for accurate reports to be made to the head of the department 
granting the lease, in such form and manner as he may prescribe, cover- 
ing all items of cost, rates of service, and profits, togetl\er with all other 
information which he may require; for the control of capitalization; and 
such other conditions and requirements as may be necessary to fully 
protect the public interest. 

Sec. 3. That in case the Government shall itself take over the 
properties of any of these lessees under the provisions of this Act or shall 
make or transfer its lease to other parties upon the expiration of the 
grant, it shall pay or require its new lessee to pay the reasonable valua- 
tion of all properties taken over or transferred, which shall include all 
works, equipment, structures, and property created or acquired, valu- 
able and serviceable in the generation and transmission of electrical 
power, including the transmission system from generating plant to initial 
points of distribution, and which are dependent, in whole or in part, for 
their usefulness upon the continuance of the lease herein provided for, 
but shall not include or take into consideration any properties or values 
whatsoever not specifically mentioned herein. Such reasonable values 
shall be determined by mutual agreement between the head of the de- 
partment making the lease and the lessees, and in case they can not 
agree, then by proceedings instituted in the United States circuit court 
for the condemnation of such properties. The rule for determinmg 
the value shall be the cost of replacing the structures necessary and 
convenient for the development and transmission of hydro-electric 
power by other structures capable of developing and transmitting the 
same amount of marketable power with equal efficiency. 

Sec. 4. That any lands included in any proposed lease under the 
provisions of this Act shall, from the date of filing the application for 
such lease, be reserved from entry, location, or other disposal under the 
lawsof the United States: Promded, That prospecting, entering,orpatent- 
ing of lands under the mineral-land laws shall be allowed so far as the 
same will not impair, prejudice, or destroy the use of the lands for water- 
power development, generation, and utilization; it being the intent of 
this section that, in so far as possible, lands valuable for water-power 
and for mining shall be used for both purposes, the water-power, how- 
ever, being the dominant use: Provided further, That upon the termina- 
tion of any lease either by expiration or violation of its terms, unless 
the lands be released within reasonable time, the President of the United 
States may restore such lands to their prior status. 



BILL, S. 6795 151 

Sec. 5. That any lease issued under this Act shall not be assign- 
able or transferable except upon the written consent of the head of the 
executive department having jurisdiction of the land. 

Sec. 6. That in respect to every lease issued under authority of 
this Act.the Federal Government reserves the right to control the charges 
for service to consumers in the event that the laws and authority of the 
States or municipalities where the service is being rendered prove in- 
adequate to protect the public interest. 

Sec. 7. That all lands of the United States chiefly valuable for 
the development, generation, and utilization of water-power are 
hereby reserved from all entry, and the head of the executive depart- 
ment having control of such lands shall proceed as rapidly as may be to 
select, designate, and list the same, and shall publish such lists; and 
after such publication no lands so listed shall be disposed of except upon 
the express conditions that all rights to the occupancy and use thereof 
for the purpose of developing, generating, and utilizing electrical power 
are reserved in perpetuityexclusivelyto the United States, which reserved 
right shall be expressed in the patent; but the President may, in his dis- 
cretion, revoke such designation at any time as to any lands not under 
lease: Provided, Th.a,tii any holder of a lease under this Act injures or 
damages, by the erection or maintenance of works authorized under this 
Act, the lawful possession of any settler on lands which have not been 
designated by the President as herein provided, said lessee shall be liable 
to the party injured for such injury or damage. 

Sec. 8. That the regulations authorized by this Act, and any al- 
terations and amendments thereof, shall be transmitted to Congress as 
soon as practicable, and each head of an executive department affected 
by this Act shall annually report to Congress a copy of each lease issued 
during each year, and the number then in force, and a tabulation of all 
existing leases, as to name of lessee, term of years, location and amount of 
land occupied, capacity of plant, rate and amount of rental charge, and 
such other facts as Congress may require. 

Sec. 9. That it is the intent of this Act to promote the develop- 
ment of water-power, as being the only means of conserving this valuable 
natural resource, and to provide reasonable security for the capital ne- 
cessarily invested therein, and allow a fair return upon such investment 
and at the same time safeguard the users of the power so developed 
from extortion, and to fuUy protect the public interest. 

Sec. 10. That all Acts and parts of Acts inconsistent herewith are 
hereby repealed. 



APPENDIX XVII (b) 



AMENDMENT TO BILL, S. 6795* 

Intended to be Proposed by Mr. T. E. Burton — A Bill to Con- 
trol THE Development of Water-Power and the Use of 
Pttblic Lands in Relation thereto. Dated June 8, 1912 

STRIKE out all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 
That the Attorney General, the Secretary of the Interior, and the 
Secretary of Agriculture shall, for the purposes herein provided, jointly 
formulate and publish uniform rules and regulations for the use of public 
lands. The head of the executive department having jurisdiction and 
control of lands to be occupied and used in accordance with the pro- 
visions of this Act and in conformity to the rules and regulations to be 
formulated by virtue of the provisions of this section is hereby au- 
thorized to lease any part of the public lands of the United States, re- 
served or unreserved, including national forests, national parks, national 
monuments, Indian, military, and other reservations, including the 
district of Alaska, for a period not longer than fifty years, for the pur- 
pose of constructing, maintaining, and operating thereon dams, canals, 
ditches, pipe lines, flumes, tunnels, conduits, reservoirs, power-plants, 
transmission lines, and other works necessary or convenient to the de- 
velopment, generation, transmission, and utilization of hydro-electric 
or other water-power, which lease shall be irrevocable, but which shall 
become null and void upon breach of any of its terms. Each such lease 
shall be issued, as herein provided for, by the head of the executive de- 
partment having control of the public lands to be used and upon a find- 
ing by him that such proposed lease is in harmony with the pubfic in- 
terest and, if within any public forest, park, monument, or reservation, 
consistent with the purposes for which such forest, park, monument, 
or reservation was created: Provided, That transfer of jurisdiction over 
lands included in any lease from one department to another shall not 
affect the validity of the lease, but administration and control of the 
lease in relation to such lands shall be transferred to the department 
having jurisdiction of the land. 

Sec. 2. That the rules and regulations made in pursuance of this 
Act, and each lease granted thereunder, shall provide for prompt and full 



*Both the original Bill and the Amendment were reterred to the Committee on 
Public Lands, no report thereon having been made to the Senate. 



AMENDMENT TO BILL, S. 6795 153 

development and continuous operation of the water-power; for a rea- 
sonable rate of rental and the terms of payment of the same ; for nego- 
tiations for a renewal not more than ten nor less than five years prior to 
the expiration of the lease ; for the valuation of and compensation for the 
physical properties upon the termination of the lease; for accurate re- 
ports to be made to the head of the department having jurisdiction and 
control, in such form and manner as may be prescribed, covering all 
items of cost, rates of service, and profits, together with all other in- 
formation which may be required; for the control of capitalization and 
bonded indebtedness; and such other conditions and requirements as 
may be necessary to fully protect the public interest. 

Sec. 3. That in case the Government shall itself take over the 
properties of any of these lessees under the provisions of this Act, or 
shall make or transfer its lease to other parties upon the expiration of 
the lease,it shall payor require its new lessee to pay the reasonable valua- 
tion of all properties taken over or transferred, which shall include all 
works, equipment, structures, and other physical property created or 
acquired, valuable and serviceable in the generation and transmission 
of electrical power, including the transmission system from generating 
plant to initial points of distribution, and which are dependent in whole 
or in part for their usefulness upon the continuance of the lease herein 
provided for, but shaU not include or take into consideration any pro- 
perties or values whatsoever not specifically mentioned in this section. 
Such reasonable values shall be determined by mutual agreement be- 
tween the head of the department having jurisdiction and control and 
the lessees, and in case they can not agree, then by proceedings instituted 
in the United States circuit court for the condemnation of such properties. 
The rule for determining the value shall be the cost of replacing the 
structures necessary and convenient for the development and transmis- 
sion of hydro-electric or other water-power by other structures capable 
of developing and transmitting the same amount of marketable power 
with equal efficiency. 

Sec. 4. That any lands included in any proposed lease under the 
provisions of this Act shall, from the date of filing the application for such 
lease, be reserved from entry, location, or other disposal under the laws 
of the United States : Provided, That rights of way contemplated by this 
Act or as provided by any laws of the United States may be approved, 
and prospecting, entering, or patenting of lands under the mineral-land 
laws may be allowed so far as the same will not impair, prejudice, or 
destroy the use of the lands for water-power development, generation, 
and utilization; it being the intent of this section that, in so far as 
possible, lands valuable for water-power and for mining shall be used for 
both purposes, the water-power, however, being the dominant use: 
Provided further, That upon the rejection of an application or the ter- 



1 



154 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

mination of any lease either by expiration or violation of its terms, unless 
the lands be again leased within reasonable time, the President of the 
United States may restore such lands to their prior status. 

Sec. 5. That any lease issued under this Act shall not be assignable 
or transferable except upon the written consent of the head of the 
executive department having jurisdiction of the land. 

Sec. 6. That in respect to every lease issued under authority of 
this Act the Federal Government reserves the right to control the 
charges for service to consumers in the event that the laws and authority 
of the states or municipalities where the service is being rendered prove 
inadequate to protect the public interest. 

Sec. 7. That all lands of the United States valuable for the 
development, generation, and utilization of water-power are hereby 
reserved from all entry, and the head of the executive department 
having jurisdiction and control of such lands shall proceed, as rapidly 
as may be, to select, designate, and list the same, and shall publish such 
lists; and after such publication the lands so listed may be opened by 
the President to location, settlement, entry, and disposition under the 
appropriate public-land laws only upon the express conditions that all 
rights to the occupancy and use thereof for the purpose of developing, 
generating, and utilizing water-power are reserved in perpetuity exclu- 
sively to the United States, which reserved right shall be expressed in 
the patent; but the President may, in his discretion, revoke such 
designation at any time as to any lands not under lease : Provided, That 
the holder of any lease under this Act shall be liable, in the case of 
public lands not designated hereunder, to any settler thereon for any 
injury or damage which he may sustain on account of the erection or 
maintenance of works authorized under this Act; and in the case of 
lands designated hereunder, to any settler, owner, or occupant for the 
agricultural value of the lands and for any injury or damage to improve- 
ments or crops lawfully existing thereon. 

Sec. 8. That nothing contained in this Act shall be construed as 
in any way exempting or relieving any lessee from full and complete 
compliance with all laws and regulations made by or under the authority 
of any State or Territory to whose jurisdiction it is subject. 

Sec. 9. That the regulations authorized by this Act, and any 
alterations and amendments thereof, shall be transmitted to Congress 
as soon as practicable, and each head of an executive department 
affected by this Act shall annually make a report to Congress of each 
lease issued or terminated during the year, together with a tabulation 
of all existing leases, as to name and address of lessee, term of years, 
location and amount of land occupied, capacity of plant, rate and 
amount of rental charge, and such other facts as Congress may require. 



AMENDMENT TO BILL S. 6795 165 

Sec. 10. That it is the intent of this Act to promote the develop- 
ment of water-power, as being the only means of conserving this valuable 
natural resource, and to provide reasonable security for the capital 
necessarily invested therein, and allow a fair return upon such invest- 
ment, and at the same time safeguard the users of the power so developed 
from extortion, and to fully protect the public interest. 

Sec. 11. That all Acts and parts of Acts inconsistent herewith 
are hereby repealed. 




APPENDIX XVIII (a) 



BILL H. R. 32219 

Introduckd in the United States House of Representatives, 
61st Congress, Third Session, January 28th, 1911, by Mr. 
H. O. Young of Michigan. A Bill to Provide for the 
Improvement of Navigation in the St. Lawrence River, and 
FOR THE Construction of Dams, Locks, Canals, and other 
Appurtenant Structures therein at and near Long Sault, 
Barnhart and Sheek Islands 

BE it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled. That the 
Long Sault Development Company, a corporation organized under a 
law of the state of New York, entitled " An Act to incorporate the Long 
Sault Development Company, and to authorize said company to 
construct and maintain dams, canals, power houses, and locks at or near 
Long Sault island, for the purpose of improving the navigation of the 
St. Lawrence river and developing power from the waters thereof, 
and to construct and maintain a bridge, and carry on the manufacture 
of commodities," which became effective May twenty-third, nineteen 
hundred and seven, its successors and assigns, be, and they hereby are, 
authorized to construct, maintain, and operate for navigation, water- 
power and other purposes for a period of ninety-nine years a dam or 
dams in so much of the St. Lawrence river as lies south of the Inter- 
national boundary line between the United States of America and 
the Dominion of Canada, near Long Sault, Barnhart, and Sheek islands, 
either independently or in connection with like works now erected 
or to be erected in so much of said river as lies north of said International 
boundary line, with a bridge or bridges and approaches thereto, and- 
a, lock or locks, a canal or canals, and other structures appurtenant 
thereto: Provided, That such dam or dams, lock or locks, canal or 
canals, and other structures appurtenant thereto, except as herein 
otherwise provided, shall be constructed, maintained, operated, modi- 
fied, or removed in all respects subject to and in accordance with the 
provisions of the Act entitled "An Act to amend an Act entitled 'Aa 
Act to regulate the construction of dams across navigable waters,'" 
approved June twenty-third, nineteen hundred and ten: Provided 
further, That such bridge or bridges and approaches thereto,- except as 
herein otherwise provided, shall be constructed, maintained, operated, 



BILL, H.R. 32219 157 

modified, or removed in all respefts subject to and in accordance with 
the provisions of the Act entitled " An Act to regulate the construction 
of bridges over navigable waters," approved March twenty-third, 
nineteen hundred and six: And provided further, That the Secretary 
of War shall cause a survey of that portion of the St. Lawrence river 
to be affected by said improvements to be made with a view to securing 
a navigable channel, suitable for commerce up and down said river, 
from a point opposite the western end of Croil island to a point opposite 
the eastern end of Barnhart island, together with plans and specifica- 
tions therefor, and all rights herein granted to the Long Sault Develop- 
ment Company shall be conditional on its improvement of said channel 
at its own expense, in accordance with said plans and specifications, 
said channel to be completed simultaneously with the other works 
herein authorized, all expenses connected with such survey and the 
preparation of such plans and specifications to be paid by the said 
company, its successors, or assigns. 

Sec. 2. That said Long Sault Development Company, its succes- 
sors and assigns, shall be subject to the provisions of the treaty between 
the United States and Great Britain relative to the boundary waters 
between the United States and Canada, proclaimed by the President 
of the United States on the thirteenth day of May, nineteen hundred 
and ten. 

Sec. 3. That the actual construction of the works hereby author- 
ized shall be commenced within two years and shall be completed 
within fifteen years from the date of the passage of this Act ; otherwise 
this Act shall be void, and the rights hereby conferred shall cease and 
be determined. 

Sec. 4. That if said Long Sault Development Company, or any 
other company or companies acting with it in such development, 
shall develop power by the construction of works a part of which shall 
be located north of the International boundary line, at least one-half 
of the power generated shall be delivered in the United States: Pro- 
vided, That when in the opinion of the Secretary of War and the Chief 
of Engineers use can not be found in the United States for the full 
share thus assigned to this country the surplus may be temporarily 
diverted to Canada, but shall be returned to the United States when in 
the opinion of said officers it is needed : Provided further, That nothing 
herein contained shall be construed to prevent the importation from 
Canada of the whole or any part of the power generated from any of 
the said works in the St. Lawrence river. 

Sec. 5. That should the works hereby authorized be or become 
at any time, in the opinion of the Secretary of War and the Chief of 
Engineers, inadequate to accommodate, or an interference with the 
navigation of that portion of the St. Lawrence river affected thereby, said 



158 COMMISSION OP CONSERVATION 

company, its successors or assigns, shall, under the supervision of the 
Secretary of War and the Chief of Engineers, make adequate provision 
for the accommodation of navigation; and should said company, its 
successors or assigns, fail so to do, the United States Government shall, 
under the supervision of the Secretary of War and the Chief of Engineers, 
do anything required to make such provision for navigation, and the 
expense thereof shall constitute a debt of said company, its successors 
or assigns, and a lien upon all its property. 

Sec. 6. That the Long Sault Development Company shall execute 
a bond obligatory on itself, its successors and assigns, with good and 
solvent sureties in the sum of five hundred thousand dollars, payable 
to the United States, for the use and benefit of the riparian and other 
landowners in and along the St. Lawrence river conditioned to pay all 
damages that may accrue to them, or any of them, by reason of over- 
flow, ice jams, and other causes produced by the erection or maintenance 
of said dam or dams, and the work of construction shall not commence 
until said bond is executed and approved by the Secretary of War and 
deposited in the War Department. 

Sec. 7. That the right to alter, amend, or repeal this Act is 
hereby expressly reserved, and the United States shall incur no liability 
because of the alteration, amendment, or repeal thereof. 



APPENDIX XVIII (b) 



REPORT ON BILL H. R. 32219 

61ST CONGEESS, ThIRD SeSSION, BT THE COMMITTEE ON RiVERS AND 

Harbours of the United States House op Representatives 

THE Committee on Rivers and Harbours in presenting the accom- 
panying Bill to provide for the improvement of navigation in 
the St. Lawrence river submits the following explanation thereof, and 
recommends that the Bill do pass. 

I. The Provisions of the Bill: 

The Bill authorizes the Long Sault Development Co., a corporation 
organized under a special law of the state of New York for the purpose 
of improving navigation and creating power, to construct, maintain 
and operate for a period of 99 years for navigation, water-power, 
and other purposes, a dam or dams, with a bridge or bridges and 
approaches and a lock or locks and canal or canals, in that portion of 
the St. Lawrence river lying south of the International Boundary line 
near Long Sault, Barnhart, and Sheek islands, a few miles east of the 
town of Massena, St. Lawrence county, N.Y., either independently or 
in connection with like works now erected or to be erected in so much 
of said river as lies north of the International Boundary line. 

The Act provides that such work shall be constructed, maintained,, 
modified, or removed in all respects subject to and in accordance with 
the general dam act approved June 23, 1910, and the general bridge 
act, approved March 23, 1906. 

The St. Lawrence river where the work is to be done is a boundary 
river between the United States and Canada. Therefore the Bill makes 
the Long Sault Development Co., its successors and assigns, subject to 
the provisions of the treaty between the United States and Great Britain 
relative to boundary waters between the United States and the Do- 
minion of Canada. It is believed to be probable that under the terms 
of that treaty the consent and approval of the International Waterways 
Commission, provided for therein, will have to be obtained before the 
work can begin. In addition the work to be carried on is a very large 
one. For these reasons it has been provided that the company may 
have two years to begin the work and 15 years to complete it. 



160 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

The Bill further provides that should the Long Sault Development 
Co. or any other company or companies acting in concert with it 
extend its works beyond the International Boundary line into Canadian 
waters, which would practically involve damming the whole river 
that in such case at least one-half of the power developed by the com- 
pleted works shall be delivered in the United States when needed. 

It is believed by your Committee that the interests of navigation 
and that of the Government and people of the United States are com- 
pletely safeguarded by the provisions of the general dam act, the general 
bridge act, and by the third proviso of section 1, together with sections 
5 and 6 of the pending Bill. This question will be discussed more at 
length later in this report. 

77. The Legislation of the State of New York: 

The Long -Sault Development Co. owes it origin to an act of the 
legislature of the state of New York, passed by a two-thirds vote, which 
received the approval of Gov. Charles E. Hughes. The Act created 
the Long Sault Development Co. as a corporation with the usual powers 
of corporations and in addition granted it the right to build works in 
the St. Lawrence river near Long Sault island, or Barnhart island, "but 
not north of the International Boundary line, unless consented to by 
the Dominion of Canada," for the purpose of improving navigation and 
creating a water-power and generating electrical power therefrom. 
This act fully recognized the jurisdiction of Congress over the question 
of navigation in the St. Lawrence river. The Bill in its original form 
did not provide for any compensation to the state of New York for the 
rights granted in the St. Lawrence river. This was not satisfactory to 
Gov. Hughes, and at his suggestion the Bill was recalled by the legis- 
lature and the matter of compensation to the State was then thoroughly 
canvassed by the Governor with the aid of Mr. Frederick Stevens, 
superintendent of public works of the state of New York, and the 
engineer and surveyor of that State upon one side, and the president of 
the Long Sault Development Co. and Mr. John R. Freeman, a dis- 
tinguished engineer, upon the other side. These investigations were 
carried on through a period of several weeks, when a conclusion was 
reached by the Governor as to the compensation which ought to be 
charged the Long Sault Development Co. for the privileges created. 
His views upon the subject were known to the legislature and the Bill 
was amended in accordance therewith, passed, and received his approval 
and became a law May 23, 1907. 

It provides for the deeding by the State to the Long Sault Develop- 
ment Co. of the bed of the St. Lawrence river at the points designated 
for which it was to be paid the sum of 110,000. All portions of the river- 



REPORT ON BILL H.R. 32219 161 

bed not actually used by the said company for the building of its works 
are to revert to the state of New York. In addition said company to 
pay the state of New York for the year 1910, the sum of $15,000, for 
1911 the sum of $20,000, and for each year thereafter upon the amount 
of power generated during each year up to 25,000 electrical horse-power 
at the rate of 75 cents per horse-power on all amounts in excess of 25,000 
and up to 100,000 horse-power at the rate of 50 cents per horse-power 
and upon all amounts in excess of 100,000 horse-power at the rate of 
25 cents per horse-power; provided that in no year after 1911, shall the 
amount paid the State be less than $25,000. It was stated in the Act 
that these payments were based upon the assumption that under this 
Act and subject to the lawful control of the United States Government 
the Long Sault Development Co. might use all of the waters of the St. 
Lawrence river south of the International Boundary line and that in 
case said company should at any time be compelled to make any pay- 
ment to the Dominion of Canada or the province of Ontario for the use 
of such water (i.e., the water south of the International Boundary line) 
an equitable adjustment of the amount of compensation to be paid to 
the state of New York should be made. 

It was stated before your Committee by witnesses, who were present 
at the negotiations with Gov. Hughes, that the reason why a lower 
rate of compensation was fixed for amounts in excess of 25,000 horse- 
power up to 100,000 horse-power, than for amounts below 25,000 
horse-power, and a still lower rate for amounts in excess of 100,000 
horse-power, was that the locality where this power was to be developed 
was a remote one, far distant from cities of large population, and that 
the industries to consume this power would have to be attracted to 
the spot by favourable terms. That it would be easy to dispose of a 
certain amount of this power, possibly up to 100,000 horse-power, 
but that in excess of that amount it would be difficult to find users, 
and that it was therefore wise to make lower terms for it. 

The Long Sault Development Co. upon receiving the charter from 
the state of New York began preparations for exercising its rights 
thereunder, and has already expended about one and three-fourths 
million of dollars in the purchase of properties and preparation for 
developing water-power in the St. Lawrence river on a comprehensive 
plan. 

III. The Rights of the State of New York: 

It will be observed that this legislation of the state of New York is 

based upon the proposition that the state of New York owns the bed 

of the stream south of the International Boundary line and is entitled 

to use the waters for water-power, subject of course to the control of 

11 



162 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

Congress for navigation purposes, and has the power to convey such 
rights to third parties. Your Committee gave very careful considera- 
tion to this question. Without entering into an elaboratfe discussion 
of these legal questions it will be sufficient to state that both proposi- 
tions seem to be firmly established not only by the decisions of the 
courts of the state of New York, but by the courts of the United States 
as well. 

Among the cases holding that the state of New York is the owner 
of the bed of the stream of navigable rivers within its boundaries are 
the following: 

Fulton Light Co. v. State of N. Y. (65 Misc. N. Y., 263). 

Niagara Irrigation Co. v. College Heights Co. (Ill App. Div., 770). 

Pipe Line v. N. Y. & Lake Erie R. R. Co. (10 Abb. New Cas., 107). 

In Matter of State Reservation (37 Hun., 537). 

Canal Appraisers v. Tibbets (17 Wend., 570). 

People V. Gillette (11 N. Y., Supp., 461). 

Thousand Island Steamboat Co. v. Visger (179 N.Y., 206). 

Barney v. Keokuk (94 U. S., 324). 

lUinois Central R. R. Co. v. Illinois (146 U. S., 387). 

Shively v. Bowlby (152 U. S., 1). 

Scranton v. Wheeler (57 Fed. Rep., 803). 

Packer v. Bird (137 U. S., 661). 

Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan (3 Howard, 212). 

Martin v. Waddel (16 Peters, 367). 

Good Title v. Kibbe (9 Howard, 471). 

United States v. Chandler-Dunbar Co. (200 U. S., 447). 

Rumsey v. N. Y. & N. E. R. R. Co. (63 Hun., 200). 

In Barney v. Keokuk (94 U. S., 338) the court says that there is 
"no sound reason for adhering to the old rule as to the proprietorship 
of the beds and shores of such (i. e., navigable) waters. It properly 
belongs to the states by their inherent sovereignly, and the United 
States has wisely abstaiaed from extending (if it could extend) its 
survey and grants beyond the limits of high water." 

In Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan (3 Howard, 212) the United States 
had attempted by patent to convey the bed of the Alabama river and 
the Supreme Court held the patent void because the United States 
by its acquisition of Alabama, through treaty with Spain, had never 
acquired any title to soil under the navigable rivers and none had been 
conferred by the Constitution of the United States. 

In Scranton v. Wheeler (57 Fed. Rep., 803) Justice Lurton, now 
one of the justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, said at 
page 810: 

The doctrine that the title to the submerged lands within the 
banks of navigable rivers belongs to the states respectively within 



BEPORT ON BILL H.R. 32219 163 

which such rivers are situate, and not the United States was settled 
at an early day and has never been questioned. 

In 1905 Gen. Mackenzie, Chief of Engineers, made a report to the 
Secretary of War, Mr. Taft, upon a Bill then pending in Congress, in 
which he said: 

The Federal Government has no possessory title to the water 
flowing in navigable streams, nor to the land comprising their beds 
and shores, and hence Congress can grant no absolute authority 
to anyone to use and occupy such water and land for manufacturing 
and industrial purposes. The establishment, regulation, and 
control of manufacturing and industrial enterprises, as well as 
other matters pertaining to the comfort, convenience, and pros- 
perity of the people, come within the powers of the states, and the 
Supreme Court of the United States holds that the authority of a 
state over navigable waters within its borders, and the shores 
and beds thereof, is plenary, subject only to such action as Congress 
may take in the execution of its powers under the Constitution to 
regulate commerce among the several States. 
The Secretary of War, WUliam H. Taft, adopted the report of Gen. 
Mackenzie and stated that it was "comprehensive, accurate, and 
instructive." Subsequently, in 1907, a hearing was held before Mr. 
Taft, still Secretary of War, in relation to the water-power of the Des 
Plaines and Illinois rivers. It appeared that the Des Plaines river 
was probably not a navigable stream. But the Secretary of War, in 
deciding the application, said: 

But even if it had been a navigable stream, and even if the 
application had been made, and properly made to this department, 
to say whether this would interfere with navigation if the depart- 
ment concluded it would not interfere with navigation, then it is 
not within the power of the department to withhold its expressing 
such an opinion and granting such a permit, so far as the United 
States is concerned, for the purpose of aiding the State in controlling 
the water-power. If the State has any control over the water-power, 
which it may exercise in conflict with the claimed rights of the 
riparian owner, then it must exercise it itself, through its own 
legislation and through its own executive officers. All the United 
States does, assuming it to be a navigable stream, is merely, to 
protect the navigation of the stream. With reference to the water- 
power, it has no function except in respect to water-power which 
it itself creates by its own investment in property that it itself owns; 
and then, of course, it may say how that water-power shall be used. 
But with respect to the water-power on a navigable stream, 
which may be exercised without interference with the use of the 
river for navigation purposes, that is controlled^by the laws of the 
State. It is controlled by the riparian ownership and by the common 
law as it governs those rights. Therefore, I do not see, with refer- 
ence to this matter, that this department has any function to per- 
form or which it can perform. £,? -..j ., 



164 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

The above are but a few of the authorities which may be quoted 
to the same effect. Your Committee, has been unable to find a single 
judicial opinion to the contrary. 

It will be observed that several of the above cases relate to the 
Niagara river and one to the St. Mary river, both of which are bound- 
ary streams between the United States and Canada, and no distinction 
is made as to the ownership of submerged lands in boundary and m 
other navigable rivers which are entirely within a state. The con- 
clusion of your Committee is therefore that the ownership of the state 
of New York of the submerged lands under the St. Lawrence river, south 
of the International Boundary line, is too firmly established by a long 
and unvarying line of precedents to be now seriously questioned. 

To the proposition that the State being the owner of the sub- 
merged lands may develop water-power therein and transfer such right 
to a third party, the following cases may be quoted: 

Thousand Island Steamboat Co. v. Visger (179 N.Y., 206). 

Langdon v. Mayor (93 N.Y., 129). 

People V. N.Y. & Staten Island Ferry Co. (68 N.Y., 71). 

Hoboken v. Penn. R. R. Co. (124 U.S., 656). 

Huse V. Glover (15 Fed., 292; S.C. 119 U.S., 543). 

Navigation Co. v. United States (148 U.S., 312). 

Sands v. Manistee River Improvement Co. (123, U.S., 288). 

Green Bay & Miss. Canal Co. v. Patten Paper Co. (172 U.S., 58). 

Kaukaua Water-Power Co. ?).G. B.&M.CanalCo. (142U.S.,254). 

People V. Tibbets (19 N.Y., 523). 

In People v. Tibbets, the court says: 

It is beyond dispute that the State is the absolute owner of 
the navigable rivers within its borders, and that as such owner it 
can dispose of them to the exclusion of the riparian owners. In this 
case the State executed its power of disposition in making the lease, 
and consequently such lease is valid. 

In Hoboken v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co. (124 U. S., 656) Mr. 
Justice Matthews, expressing the opinion of the court, said (p. 691) that 
the State had the power to grant submerged lands of navigable waters 
to individuals and that "under these grants the land conveyed is held 
by the grantees on the same terms on which all other lands are held by 
private persons under absolute titles, and every previous right of the 
state of New Jersey therein,, whether proprietary or sovereign, is trans- 
ferred or extinguished, except such sovereign rights as the State may 
lawfully exercise over all other private property." 

In Monongahela Navigation Co. v. United States (148 U. S., 312) 
it was held that a state might authorize a private company to~eoii- 
struct a dam, or other work, in connection with the improvement of 
navigation, and might further authorize the company to exact tolls. 



REPORT ON BILL H.R. 32219 165 

These cases are conclusive on the question of the right of the state 
of New York to grant the exclusive use of the waters in the St. Law- 
rence river, south of the International Boundary line, to the Long 
Sault Development Go., subject, of course, to the control of Congress 
in the interest of navigation. 

It appears clear, therefore , to your Committee that the state of New 
York was at the time it created the Long Sault Development Go. the 
owner of the bed of the St. Lawrence river, south of the International 
Boundary line, and had the right to use the waters therein for develop- 
ing water-power; that it had power to convey this right to a third 
party, and that it had done so through the act of its legislature; that 
this action was not taken hurriedly or in the night time, but after due 
deliberation, with full knowledge of all the facts before it, and that its 
action received the approval of Gov. Hughes, than whom no official has 
ever been more alive to the duty of protecting the interests of all the 
people. 

Believing, therefore, that the State having rights in the waters of 
the St. Lawrence river, and the United States having another right 
therein, in the interest of navigation, comity between the State and 
nation, and fair dealing between trustees representing different interests 
in a common property, required that, if possible, the rights of both 
State and the nation should be recognized and given full effect and that 
the power of the National Government should not, under the guise of 
protecting navigation, or from merely fanciful imaginary and indefinable 
fears of possible evils, be used to thwart the wishes of the State as ex- 
pressed by its legislature and executive, nor to destroy its property, but 
that an honest attempt should be made to reconcile the interests of both 
the State and the nation and so legislate that both might be benefited 
by the action taken, your Committee has given its chief attention to the 
question of improving navigation in connection with the development of 
water-power under authority of the state of New York. It believes 
that these two objects may be pursued together not only without det- 
riment to either, but with mutual advantage to both. 

IV. The Locus in Quo: 

The St. Lawrence river, from lake Ontario to its mouth, is navi- 
gable, except at a number of rapids up which boats can not go, and 
down which it is safe for very few boats to go. To provide for navi- 
gation at these points the Government of Canada has, at much expense, 
built canals upon the Canadian side of the river. One of these rapids 
occurs in the main channel of the river between Long Sault island and 
Barnhart island. It is known as the Sault rapids. Long Sault island 
is entirely in the territory of the United States. To the north of Long 
Sault island is situated Sheek island, entirely in Canadian territory, and 



166 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

to the south of Sheek island and east of Long Sault island is situated 
Barnhart island, entirely in the territory of the United States. The 
distance from the western end of Long Sault island to the eastern end 
of Barnhart island is 11 miles. Long Sault island divides the river into 
two channels, the main channel north of the island and the South Sault 
channel south of the island. About 20 per cent, of the waters of the 
river flow through the South Sault channel and 80 per cent, of the waters 
flow through the main or northern channel to the eastern end of Long 
Sault island, where about 5 per cent, of the waters flow to the east 
through the Little channel, so called, between Sheek and Barnhart 
islands, through which the International Boundary line runs, while the 
main channel through which 75 per cent, of all the river flows is diverted 
to the south and its waters pour over the Long Sault rapids between 
Long Sault and Barnhart islands. The head of water that can be ob- 
tained just below these rapids is 35 or 40 feet. The evidence before 
your Committee showed that about 100,000 horse-power could be de- 
veloped in the South Sault channel alone by works situated south of the 
International Boundary line, and that if works were extended through 
the main and little channels to the Canadian shore the amount could be 
increased to approximately 600,000 horse-power. 

The accompanying map* shows the location and the works as pro- 
posed by the Long Sault Development Co. It must be remembered, 
however, that those on the American side may be greatly modified by 
the Secretary of War and the Chief of Engineers, and that those on the 
Canadian side are subject to modifications or rejection by the Canadian 
authorities. 

V. Improvement of Navigation: 

The South Sault channel and the Little channel, in their present 
condition, are not navigable for boats of ordinary size. The main 
channel between Long Sault island and Barnhart island is not navi- 
gable for any boats going upstream, nor is it navigable for any freight 
boats going downstream. Practically the only navigation through 
that part of the river is provided by one passenger boat a day for 
three or four months each year. This boat draws but about six feet 
of water and passes down over the rapids, but cannot ascend them. 
The excitement caused by the swirl of the water and the danger forms 
the chief attractions for this attempt. The real provision for navigation 
around the rapids is furnished by the Cornwall canal, which opens from 
the main channel of the river north of Long Sault island, passes into a 
little lake north of Sheek island, passes through the lake, and proceeding 
thence along the north bank of the river enters the main stream at 
Cornwall, some distance east of Barnhart island. 



*Not reproduced in this rqiort. 



EEPORT ON BILL H.R. 32219 167 

There are six locks in this canal and the passage through it is very 
slow. It was stated to your Committee by Mr. John Kennedy, a 
Canadian engineer of the highest standing, who represented the har- 
bour commission of the city of Montreal, that the St. Lawrence canals 
were rapidly becoming obsolete and that the subject of canalizing 
the river must soon be considered in order to provide for larger boats 
and a greater amount of business. The proposed plan will provide 
for navigation in the river with but one lock and will be a very sub- 
stantial improvement. 

This Bill provides that the general dam act shall apply to all works 
erected in the St. Lawrence river south of the International Boundary 
line. It may be well, therefore, to examine some of the provisions of 
that wise act of legislation, reported by the Committee on Interstate 
and Foreign Commerce, intended to safeguard the interest of navigation. 
It provides that no work of the character contemplated by the pend- 
ing Bill can be begun in any navigable stream until completed plans 
therefor have been submitted to the Secretary of War and Chief of 
Engineers and have received their approval and, further, that no devia- 
tion can be made therefrom without the consent of such officials. It 
provides that the Chief of Engineers and the Secretary of War in 
approving the plans and location for such works may impose such 
conditions and stipulations as they may deem necessary to protect 
the present and future interests of the United States, which may 
include the condition that the persons constructing or maintaining 
such dam shall construct, maintain, or operate without expense to 
the United States a lock or locks, boom, sluice, or any other structure 
which they or Congress at any time may deem necessary in the interest 
of navigation, and that the persons building such locks shall convey to 
the United States title to all land for such constructions and approaches 
and furnish free water for operating the same. 

It protects third parties by the provision that the parties who 
construct the works shall be liable for all damage caused to third 
parties by overflow or otherwise. It is provided further that in approv- 
ing such plans the Chief of Engineers and the Secretary of War shall 
take into consideration the effect of such structure upon a compre- 
hensive plan for the improvement of the waterway, and that they may 
fix such charges for the privilege granted as may be sufficient to restore 
conditions with respect to navigability as existing at the time said 
privilege is granted, or reimburse the United States for doing the 
same or for any expense it may incur in connection with such project. 
It provides further that all rights acquired shall cease if the party 
acquiring them shall fail after reasonable notice to comply with any of 
the provisions or regulations of the act, or with any of the stipulations and 
conditions that may be prescribed by the Chief of Engineers and Secre- 



168 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

tary of War, and reserves the right to revoke any right conferred under 
the Act whenever it is necessary for public use, but in that event the 
United States is to pay reasonable compensation to the party injured. 
Itjfurther provides that on failure to comply with any lawful order of 
the Secretary of War and Chief of Engineers, such officers may cause the 
removal of all works as an obstruction to navigation, at the expense of 
the persons owning or controlling them; and the right is reserved to alter, 
amend, or repeal the Act without incurring liability therefor to the 
owner or owners or any persons interested in such works. It will be 
seen that this Act is most carefully drawn and drastic in its provisions, 
and that nearly every contingency which human wisdom can foresee 
has been provided for. 

VI. Increased Safeguards of Navigation: 

But your Committee, in view of the great extent of the works con- 
templated at this point, of the great importance of the St. Lawrence 
river and of its international character, have not been content to rest 
on the general dam act alone but have added to its wise provisions. 
Your Committee was not willing to leave entirely to the discretion 
of the Secretary of War and the Chief of Engineers the determination 
of the question as to what provision for navigation should be made 
at this point. The third proviso of section 1 of the pending Bill pro- 
vides that a survey shall be made under authority of the Secretary of 
War of that portion of the St. Lawrence river to be affected by such 
improvement, with a view to securing a navigable channel suitable 
for commerce up and down said river, from a point opposite the western 
end of Long Sault island to a point opposite the eastern end of Barnhart 
island, together with plans and specifications therefor and that all rights 
granted in said Bill to the Long Sault Development Co. shall be con- 
ditioned on its improvement of said channel at its own expense in accord- 
ance with said plans and specifications, said channel to be completed 
simultaneously with said other works herein authorized. In other 
words, the Long Sault Development Go. as a condition for being per- 
mitted to carry out its project is required at its own expense to furnish 
a suitable channel for navigation up and down the river through the 
Long Sault rapids. 

That such a plan is entirely feasible was stated to your Committee 
by such eminent engineers as Mr. Alfred Noble and Mr. John R. Free- 
man. It will require but one lock in place of the six locks of the Corn- 
wall canal. Instead of that narrow channel it will provide a chaimel 
not less than 600 feet in width. It will be a great and substantial 
improvement of navigation, and under the wise direction of the Chief 
of Engineers and the Secretary of War can easily be made to fit into a 
comprehensive scheme for the canalization of the whole river. 



REPORT ON BILL H.R. 32219 169 

The Bill also contains a provision which in the judgment of your 
Committee amplifies and extends the power of the Chief of Engineers 
and the Secretary of War beyond that prescribed in the general dam 
giCt in that it compels the Long Sault Development Go., its successors 
or assigns, to make at its own expense adequate provisions for the 
changing and increasing demands of commerce. Section 5 provides: 

Sec. 5. That should the works hereby authorized be or be- 
come at any time, in the opinion of the Secretary of the War and 
the Chief of Engineers, inadequate to accommodate, or should they 
otherwise interfere with the navigation of that portion of the St. 
Lawrence river affected thereby, said company, its successors or 
assigns, shall, under the supervision of the Secretary of War and 
the Chief of Engineers, make adequate provision for the accommo- 
dation of navigation; and should said company, its successors or 
assigns, fail so to do, the United States Government shall, under the 
supervision of the Secretary of War and the Chief of Engineers, do 
the work required to make such provision for navigation, and the 
expense of such work shall constitute a debt of said company, its 
successors or assigns, and a lien upon all its property. 

And finally the right to alter, amend, or repeal the Act is expressly 
reserved, and it is provided that the United States shall incur no 
liability because of the amendment, alteration, or repeal thereof. 

To sum up, your Committee believes that the proposed improve- 
ment when worked out under the wise supervision of the Secretary 
of War and the Chief of Engineers, without any cost to the United 
States, will bring about a very substantial improvement of the naviga- 
tion of the St. Lawrence river. That it will do away entirely with the 
dangers of the rapids and shorten by from four to six hours the 
time consumed in the trip each way by the route through the Cornwall 
canal and furnish a suitable channel for commerce entirely in American 
territory. At the same time and as incidental to navigation the develop- 
ment of the water-power under the authority of the State of New York 
will bring a considerable revenue to that State, utilize the natural 
resource that has heretofore run to waste, give employment to several 
thousand American workmen, and build up a prosperous manufacturing 
city in northern New York. 



APPENDIX XIX (a) 



BILL S. 10558 

Intkoducbd into the Senate of the United States by Mr. G. T. 
Oliver, January 30, 1911. A Bill to Provide for the 
Improvement of Navigation in the St. Lawrence River and 
FOR THE Construction of Dams, Locks, Canals, and Other 
Appurtenant Structures Therein at and near Long Sault, 
Barnhart, and Sheek Islands 

( 

BE it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
Long Sault Development Company, a corporation organized under a 
law of the state of New York, entitled " An Act to incorporate the Long 
Sault Development Company, and to authorize said company to con- 
struct and maintain dams, canals, power-houses, and locks at or near 
Long Sault island, for the purpose of improving the navigation of the 
St. Lawrence river, and developing power from the waters thereof, and 
to construct and maintain a bridge, and carry on the manufacture 
of commodities," which became effective May twenty-third, nineteen 
hundred and seven, its successors and assigns, be, and they hereby are, 
authorized to construct, maintain, and operate for navigation, water- 
power, and other purposes for a period of ninety-nine years, a dam or 
dams in so much of the St. Lawrence river as lies south of the Inter- 
national Boundary line between the United States of America and the 
Dominion of Canada, near Long Sault, Barnhart, and Sheek islands, 
either independently or in connection with like works now erected or to 
be erected in so much of said river as lies north of said International 
Boundary line, with a bridge or bridges and approaches thereto, and a 
lock or locks, a canal or canals, and other structures appurtenant 
thereto: Provided, That such dam or dams, lock or locks, canal or 
canals, and other structures appurtenant thereto, except as herein 
otherwise provided, shall be constructed, maintained, operated, modi- 
fied, or removed in all respects subject to and in accordance with the 
provisions of the Act entitled "An Act to amend an Act entitled 'An 
Act to regulate the construction of dams across navigable waters,'" 
approved June twenty-third, nineteen hundred and ten: Provided 
further, That such bridge or bridges and approaches thereto, except 
as herein otherwise provided, shall be constructed, maintained, oper- 
ated, modified, or removed in all respects subject to and in accordance 



BILL S. 10558 171 

with the provisions of the Act entitled "An Act to regulate the con- 
struction of bridges over navigable waters," approved March twenty- 
third, nineteen hundred and six: And frovided further, That the Sec- 
retary of War shall cause a survey of that portion of the St. Lawrence 
river to be affected by said improvements to be made with a view 
to securing a navigable channel, suitable for commerce up and down 
said river, from a point opposite the western end of Croil island to a 
point opposite the eastern end of Barnhart island, together with plans 
and specifications therefor, and all rights herein granted to the Long 
Sault Development Company shall be conditional on its improvement 
of said channel at its own expense, in accordance with said plans and 
specifications, said channel to be completed simultaneously with the 
other works herein authorized, all expenses connected with such survey 
and the preparation of such plans and specifications to be paid by the 
said company, its successors, or assigns. 

Sec. 2. That said Long Sault Development Company, its suc- 
cessors and assigns, shall be subject to the provisions of the treaty 
between the United States and Great Britain relative to the boundary 
waters between the United States and Canada, proclaimed by the 
President of the United States on the thirteenth day of May, nineteen 
hundred and ten. 

Sec. 3. That the actual construction of the works hereby author- 
ized shall be commenced within two years and shall be completed 
within fifteen years from the date of the passage of this Act ; otherwise 
this Act shall be void, and the rights hereby conferred shall cease and 
be determined. 

Sec. 4. That if said Long Sault Development Company, or any 
other company or companies acting with it in such development, shall 
develop power by the construction of works a part of which shall be 
located north of the International Boundary line, at least one-half of 
the power generated shall be delivered in the United States: Provided, 
That when in the opinion of the Secretary of War and ,the Chief of 
Engineers use can not be found in the United States for the full share 
thus assigned to this country the surplus may be temporarily diverted 
to Canada, but shall be returned to the United States, when in the 
opinion of said officers it is needed: Provided further, That nothing 
herein contained shall be construed to prevent the importation from 
Canada of the whole or any part of the power generated from any of 
the said works in the St. Lawrence river. 

Sec. 5. That should the works hereby authorized be or become 
at any time, in the opinion of the Secretary of War and the Chief of 
Engineers, inadequate to accommodate, or an interference with, the 
navigation of that portion of the St. Lawrence river affected thereby, said 
company, its successors or assigns, shaU, under the supervision of the 



172 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

Secretary of War and the Chief of Engineers, make adequate provision 
for the accommodation of navigation; and should said company, its 
successors or assigns, fail so to do, the United States Government shall, 
under the supervision of the Secretary of War and the Chief of En- 
gineers, do anything required to make such provision for navigation, 
and the expense thereof shall constitute a debt of said company, its 
successors or assigns, and a lien upon all its property. 

Sec. 6. That the Long Sault Development Company shall execute 
a bond obligatory on itself, its successors and assigns, with good and 
solvent sureties in the sum of five hundred thousand dollars, payable 
to the United States, for the use and benefit of the riparian and other 
landowners in and along the St. Lawrence river conditioned to pay 
all damages that may accrue to them, or any of them, by reason of 
overflow, ice jams, and other causes produced by the erection or main- 
tenance of said dam or dams, and the work of construction shall not 
commence until said bond is executed and approved by the Secretary 
of War and deposited in the War Department. 

Sec. 7. That the right to alter, amend, or repeal this Act is hereby 
expressly reserved, and the United States shall incur no liability because 
of the alteration, amendment, orrepeal thereof. 




APPENDIX XIX (b) 



REPORT ON BILL S. 10558 

61sT Congress, Third Session submitted by Mr. T. E. Burton of 
Ohio, from the Committee on Commerce 

THE majority of the Committee on Commerce, to which was re- 
ferred the BUI (S. 10558) to provide for the improvement of 
navigation in the St. Lawrence river and for the construction of dams, 
locks, canals, and other appurtenant structures therein at and near 
Long Sault, Barnhart, and Sheek islands, report the same to the Senate 
and recommend that the same do pass when amended as set forth herein. 
By reason of the brief time remaining for the transaction of business 
during the present session and the opposition which has developed 
from various sources it is doubtful whether this Bill can become a 
law. But in view of the elaborate attention which the Committee 
has given to it, and the importance of certain principles which it is 
believed should be adopted in the passage of measures where water 
power and navigation are combined, the Committee desires to explain 
this Bill and set forth certain views, relating to it. 

The Bill as introduced grants to the Long Sault Development Co., 
a corporation organized under the laws of the state of New York, the 
right to construct a dam or dams in so much of the St. Lawrence river 
as lies south of the International Boundary line between the United 
States and the Domiaion of Canada near Long Sault, Barnhart, or Sheek 
islands, either independently or in connection with like works now 
erected or to be erected, in that portion of the St. Lawrence river which 
lies north of the International Boundary line, with a bridge or bridges 
and approaches thereto, and a lock or locks, a canal or canals, and 
other structures appurtenant thereto. The Bill grants an authoriza- 
tion — subject to the general dam act approved June 23, 1910, and to 
the general dam act approved June 23, 1910, and to the general act 
relating to the construction of bridges, approved March 23, 1906. It 
provides that the Secretary of War shall cause a survey of that portion 
of the St. Lawrence river to be affected by the improvements with a 
view to securing a navigable channel suitable for commerce up and down 
the said river from a point opposite the western end of Croil island to a 
point opposite the eastern end of Barnhart island, a distance of about 
11 miles, together with plans and specifications therefor, and the rights 
herein granted are made conditional on the improvement of said channel 



174 COMMISSION OP CONSERVATION 

by the company at its own expense in accordance with the plans and 
specifications made by the Secretary of War. (See sec. 1.) 

Section 5 of the Bill, as originally drawn, declares that if at any time 
the works authorized shall, in the opinion of the Secretary of War and 
the Chief of Engineers, be inadequate to accommodate navigation or an 
interference therewith, the company shall make adequate provision 
for the accommodation of navigation under the supervision of the 
Secretary of War and the Chief of Engineers, and if they should fail 
to do so the United States Government may, under the supervision of 
the Secretary of War and the Chief of Engineers, do anything required 
to make such provision for navigation, and the expense therefor shall 
constitute a debt of said company, its successors or assigns, and a lien 
upon all its property. 

The Bill as originally introduced seems to recognize the necessity 
for the concurrent action of the Canadian Government. It is stated in 
section 2 that the company shall be subject to the provisions of the 
treaty between the United States and Great Britain relative to the 
boundary waters between the United States and Canada, proclaimed 
May 13, 1910. 

In section 4 there is a provision to the effect that one-half of the 
power generated shall /be delivered in the United States. But if use 
can not be found in this country for the full share thus assigned to it, 
the surplus may be temporarily diverted to Canada. Also, that noth- 
ing in the Bill shall be construed to prevent the importation from 
Canada of the whole or any part of the power generated from any of 
the said works in the St. Lawrence river. 

Section 6 requires the execution of a bond in the sum of $500,000 
for the use and benefit of the riparian and other landowners in and 
along the St. Lawrence river, conditioned to pay all damages that 
may accrue to them, or any of them, by reason of overflow, ice jams, 
and ' other causes produced by the erection or maintenance of said 
dam or dams. 

The usual right to alter, amend, or repeal is carried in section 7. 

In the authorization for the erection of works for the creation of 
water-power it is conceded that the consent of the Canadian Govern- 
ment, that of the state of New York, and of the United States must 
alike be obtained. The river is a boundary stream, and at this point 
there are four islands of considerable size, three of which are in the 
United States and one in Canada. There are rapids in the river suf- 
ficient to preclude upstream navigation, but the channel is utilized in 
some degree by steamers going downstream, especially by the 
passenger boats of the Richelieu & Ontario Navigation Co. 

The total quantity of horse-power which can be developed in the 
respective channels of the river in this section has been estimated at 



REPORT ON BILL S. 10558 175 

not less than 500,000. It ^ill be observed that the situation affords 
possibilities in the way of development of power surpassed in very few 
localities in the world. It is also regarded as desirable that this great 
asset be utilized for the benefit of the people of the two countries abutting 
upon the river. The members of the Committee have considered the 
problem of safeguarding the interests of navigation and the general 
public, especially with a view to utilizing water-power, providing more 
perfect channels for navigation, and avoiding any monopoly or right 
of the corporation to impose burdensome charges. 

The legislature of the state of New York, by an Act passed on 
the 23rd of May, 1907, granted to the Long Sault Development Co. 
a perpetual franchise, in which was conveyed the right to construct 
dams and the necessary appurtenances to develop and transmit power. 
The Act does not in terms impose any obligation on the company to 
submit its charges for the service rendered to any public tribunal or to 
the legislature of the state of New York. 

The objects which should be secured are: 

(1) The promotion of navigation. It is not only probable but 
reasonably certain that at no very remote date the St. Lawrence in 
this section will carry a very large amount of traffic. This is now 
provided for in a measure by a lateral canal, but for larger vessels and 
more convenient navigation it must be conceded that a channel in the 
main river would be essential. Such a channel is possible in the southerly 
arm of the river south of Long Sault and Barnhart islands. 

The Bill makes the grant by the Federal Government conditional 
that the dams which are to be constructed for purposes of water-power 
shall subserve navigation and provide for present and future needs of 
commerce. 

In addition to the dams, the lessees must provide locks and the 
necessary appurtenances to dams and locks. Also they must take 
care of the channel south of Barnhart island, below the proposed dam 
in the southerly arm of the river. It is represented that a channel not 
less than 30 feet in depth and 600 feet in width will be provided. The 
present depth available for boats from the Great lakes down the St. 
Lawrence is only 14 feet, and the length of the boats for which the 
Welland canal is available is limited to 250 feet. 

The Committee recommends certain amendments for the more per- 
fect safeguarding of navigation by inserting on page 3, line 15*, after 
the word "expense," the words "including such dam or dams, lock 
or locks, and appurtenances thereto as may be necessary for navigation 
as herein provided." This insertion makes clearer the obligation of the 
company authorized to construct and m'aintain the locks and dams 
which are necessary. 

*See page 171, line 11. 



176 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

The Committee also recommends, again, by inserting on page 6* 
line 18, after the word "property," the following: 

And should said Company, its successors, or assigns fail to 
maintain or operate its dam or dams, lock or locks, with such 
appurtenances thereto as may be necessary for navigation, in such 
a manner as to adequately provide for navigation, the United 
States Government may, under the supervision of the Secretary of 
War and the Chief of Engineers, assume jurisdiction and control 
over the maintenance and operation thereof, and in case the said 
Company or its successors or assigns shall discontinue the use of the 
said dam or dams and works necessary for navigation connected 
therewith, or their ownership thereof shall terminate for any cause, 
or upon the expiration of the period of authorization granted by 
this Act, then the sole ownership therein, together with the neces- 
sary land and approaches appurtenant thereto, shall vest in the 
United States so far as the same may be located within the territory 
of the United States. 

It is hereby declared to be the intention of this Act to impose 
upon the Company to which the authorization is herein granted, 
its successors and assigns, the maintenance of the channel or chan- 
nels of the St. Lawrence river herein described in a form and to a 
degree of efficiency sufficient for the present and future demands 
of navigation, and any works herein authorized which are aids to 
navigation shall be by the said Company, its successors or assigns, 
maintained for that purpose for and during the life of the authori- 
zation hereby granted, and the same shall be in suitable condition 
for permanent use at the termination of this authorization. The 
Secretary of War and Chief of Engineers are instructed and directed 
to enforce this provision, and any and all provisions of this Act 
intended for the maintenance and promotion of navigation. 
The members of the Committee were not entirely agreed upon the 
insertion of the words " or upon the expiration of the period of authori- 
zation granted by this Act." 

The object of provisions and limitations imposed in such a grant 
is of course the proper security of navigation, and it has been argued in 
opposition to this provision that an affirmative clause requiring the 
surrender of the dams and locks at the expiration of the period of 
authorization would increase the expense of power given to consumers, 
because the Company would find it necessary, in addition to the charge 
of operation and interest upon their investment, to accumulate a 
fund equal to the value of these dams or locks during the period for 
which the grant is given; also that the necessary requirements of 



*See page 172, line 7. 



REPORT ON BILL 8. 10558 177 

navigation are secured if dams and locks are provided and maintained 
by the Company utilizing the power created. 

It is not the intention of the Committee to seek to establish a 
precedent for the insertion of such a clause in future grants, but to 
make certain that whatever works in navigable streams are constructed 
for the creation of power shall be permanently available for purposes 
of navigation. The Committee recommends that so far as possible in 
future grants for the creation of power a condition be attached, that the 
grantee shall be obligated to construct and maintain dams and locks 
suitable for the navigation of the portion of the river which is utilized. 
The decision must rest in a degree upon the circumstances in each par- 
ticular case. In some instances, it is probable that such a requirement 
would be unduly severe, but in the case of a water-power of enormous 
value like this, it is clear that no rights should be granted except upon 
the express condition that a permanent improvement in navigation 
shall be made a condition of the grant, and that such improvement shall 
continue after the period fixed for the grant itself. 

(2) The second object to be guarded in a BiU of this kind is a reason- 
able limitation in the length of the franchise. In view of the probable 
increase in the use of water-power, and the very manifest increase in 
the demand for it, together with the danger of monopoly in the enjoy- 
ment of such grants, it is thought desirable to limit the period of authori- 
zation to 50 years, or a period of that approximate length. The Bill as 
introduced provides for a period of 99 years and it is claimed that in 
this particular case the expense and difficulty are exceptional. It is 
maintained that the necessary works will eventually cost between 
$40,000,000 and $50,000,000. Again, that in the northerly portion, or 
half of the river, seven to ten years will be required for the installation 
of dams, locks and appurtenances. The \musual time for completion is 
in a measure due to the comparatively short seasons in which work can 
be done in this locality. In view of these exceptional conditions, the 
Committee thought best to allow the duration of the franchise to 15 
years for completion. It is accordingly recommended that on page 2, 
line 5,* the Bill be amended by striking out the words "of ninety-nine 
years," the length of time provided in the Bill and inserting in lieu 
thereof "terminating fifty years after the expiration of the time allotted 
by this Act for the completion of the works hereby authorized." The 
time allowed for the completion of the work is 15 years, thus making a 
stated period of 65 years. 

In the Bill as presented to the Senate, the period of 15 years is 
allowed for the creation of any and all structures contemplated. In the 
opinion of the Committee the dam and appurtenant works for the 



*See page 170, line 13. 

12 



178 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

southerly channel should be completed in less time. It is especially 
important that this part be completed at the earliest possible date, 
because the navigable channel is located here. 

The Committee accordingly recommends that in lieu of section 3, 
which grants 15 years for completion of the work, the following be 
inserted : 

That the actual construction of the work hereby authorized 
shall be commenced within two years and shall be prosecuted 
diligently and continuously to completion to the satisfaction of the 
Secretary of War; and the works in the channel south of Long 
Sault island shall be completed within six years from the date of 
the passage of this Act, and all of such work shall be completed 
within fifteen years from the date of passage of this Act; and in 
case of failure to comply with the conditions of this section this Act 
shaU be void, and the rights hereby conferred shall cease and be 
determined: Provided, That the time of completion shall apply 
only to dams, locks, and other works necessary to or constituting 
an improvement of navigation, and which works shall have been 
approved by the proper authorities. 

The clause at the close of this amendment, " That the time of com- 
pletion shall apply only to dams, locks, and other works, etc., " which 
shall have been approved by the proper authorities, is made necessary 
by the fact that the Canadian Government has not yet authorized the 
construction of the works in the northerly portion of the river. 

(3) The next object to be secured is the assurance that reasonable 
charges and service will be afforded by the Company. With this 
object in view the Committee recommends the insertion of the follow- 
ing on page 5, line * 19, after the word " river " : 

It is understood, and this Act is enacted on the express condi- 
tion, that the state of New York shall have authority to fix from 
time to time reasonable charges for power to be furnished by the 
said Long Sault Development Company and to regulate the service 
for the electric current to be produced by it, and that the same shall 
be furnished to all proposed consumers who apply in good faith to 
purchase the same and without unfair discrimination as to service 
and charge. 

In the granting of a franchise of so great magnitude it is altogether 
desirable to submit to some proper authority the regulation of charges 
and the service and to prevent unfair discrimination between the 
consumers of power. It is thought that this object is fully secured by 
the amendment above quoted. 

A perplexing question arises in grants of this nature as to whether 
the control of prices should rest with the Federal Government or 
with the State in which the improvement is located. Without stating 
potent arguments for leaving control to the State in which the power 

*See page 171, line 39. 



REPORT ON BILL S. 10558 179 

is to be utilized, because of a better understanding of the situation 
and the immediate control of a corporation which is of its own creation, 
it is thought that at least in this case the interests of the public will 
be carefully safeguarded by leaving this question to the state of New 
York. The Committee would especially recommend, however, that fran- 
chises for water-power be not granted except upon terms which will 
secure fair charges and prevent monopolistic control and that jurisdic- 
tion be granted to State or National authority as shall prove most 
effective. 

The members of the Committee having this Bill under considera- 
tion regard the three objects above stated as the most important in 
grants of water-power in navigable streams. It is thought desirable 
to pursue a liberal policy in enabling companies and organizations to 
develop water-power which is now running to waste and to impose no 
unreasonable restrictions, but at the same time to safeguard navigation, 
prevent monopoly or excessive charges, and render this enormous 
asset of the country's resources available for the largest possible num- 
ber. It is recommended that before the right to develop water-power 
in a navigable stream is granted, the effect of grant upon navigation 
shall be considered and that if necessary a complete survey be made 
of such section of the navigable stream as may be affected by the 
improvement, so that one harmonious plan for improvement may be 
accomplished. In this case these rapids constitute an obstacle which 
can be removed or properly treated under the provisions for examina- 
tion and improvement under the direction of the Secretary of War 
and Chief of Engineers. There should also be provision that the 
terms of the grant may be complied with and in case of failure that 
it may be annuUed by an official of the Government. In the opinion 
of the Committee this is sufficiently guarded in the provisions of the 
Bill at least with the addition of the amendments suggested. 

Numerous propositions have been made for the imposing of a 
license fee or charge upon those who enjoy the privilege. In the case 
of this grant such a charge has been imposed by the legislature of the 
state of New York in the grant of the franchise. One difficulty in 
the way of imposing such a charge arises from the concurrent or double 
jurisdiction of the State in which the improvement is located, and 
that of the United States. It is further to be suggested that in case 
the Government of the United States desires to impose such a charge 
upon those who develop water-power, action can be taken in the way 
of an excise tax upon all water-power, whether heretofore in use or 
hereafter to be granted. Such a tax would have in it the element of 
fairness in that there would be no discrimination between grants already 
made and those hereafter to be made. The Committee would not 



180 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

recommend any considerable tax on this species of property, because 
the inevitable result would be to increase the cost of power to con- 
sumers. ' 

There are one or two further questions presented by this Bill, one 
of which is of a very important nature, because the river at the point 
in question is on the boundary line between the United States and 
Canada. The Committee is of the opinion that, while reference is 
made to the treaty of 1910, the Bill as originally introduced does not 
take into account treaty provisions and the common rights of the 
two countries. They therefore recommend the insertion on page 4, 
line 2,* after the word "ten," the following: 

Before any works are commenced in the channel south of Long 
Sault island the plans thereof must be approved by the Inter- 
national Joint Commission, to be appointed in accordance with the 
terms of said treaty, or by such other tribunal as may be agreed 
upon by the respective Governments interested in said waterway; 
but any works herein authorized, other than xa the channel south 
of Long Sault island, shall not be commenced until after the 
approval of the proper authorities of the Dominion of Canada 
thereto has been obtained. 

It is thought that this provision, which clearly renders consent by 
the Canadian Government necessary before any construction can be 
commenced on either side of the river, secures a sufficient observance 
of the treaty rights as well as comity of action in the prosecution of 
this great work. 

The attention of the Committee has been called to the fact that 
some objection has been raised in the state of New York to the further 
prosecution of this improvement, the exact nature of which is unknown 
to the Committee. Itis to be observed that a franchise, giving full 
rights, has been granted by the state of New York without limit in 
time; The members of the Committee would call attention to the 
provision giving the right to that State, whether existing under its 
present statutes or not, to regulate charges and service. The pro- 
visions of the Bill are certainly as favourable to the state of New York 
as the franchise granted by its own legislature by more than a two- 
thirds vote. Any objection to the adequacy of the provision for 
navigation made by the authorities of New York should be received 
with the utmost deference, and it is not probable that the Bill will 
pass before such objections can be made. If promptly raised, no doubt 
due attention can be given to any request from the authorities of 
the state of New York. It should be observed, however, that so far 
as the definite action of the State, heretofore taken is concerned, 



* See page 171, line 21. 



REPORT ON BILL S. 10558 181 

Congress, in passing this Bill, would be merely affirming and strength- 
ening action already taken by that Commonwealth. 

In the opinion of the majority of the Committee, this Bill, when 
amended as proposed, marks a distinct advance in regulations for 
the grant of privileges for the utilization of water-power in navigable 
streams. It is probable that in the future still further limitations 
and reservations will be regarded as desirable, but in no bill hereto- 
fore presented to Congress or passed by it has such complete provi- 
sion been made for the paramount right of navigation and the utili- 
zation of great natural resources in accordance with the public interest. 
The majority of the Committee therefore recommend that, when 
amended as herein set forth, the Bill do pass. 

Recapitulation of Proposed Amendments 

Page 2, line * 5, strike out the words " of ninety-nine years " and 
insert in lieu thereof the words: "terminating fifty years after the 
expiration of the time allotted by this Act for the completion of the 
works hereby authorized." 

Page 3, line f 15, after the word "expense," insert the following: 
"including such dam or dams, lock or locks, and appurtenances thereto 
as may be necessary for navigation, as herein provided." 

Page 4, line ** 2, after the word "ten," insert the following: 

Before any works are commenced in the channel south of Long 
Sault island the plans thereof must be approved by the Inter- 
national Joint Commission, to be appointed in accordance with the 
terms of said treaty, or by such other tribunal as may be agreed 
upon by the respective Governments interested in said waterway; 
but any works herein authorized, other than in the channel south 
of Long Sault island, shall not be commenced until after the 
approval of the proper authorities of the Dominion of Canada 
thereto has been obtained. 

In lieu of section 3 insert the following: 

Sec. 3. That the actual construction of the work hereby 
authorized shall be commenced within two years and shall be pro- 
secuted diligently and continuously to completion to the satisfaction 
of the Secretary of War; and the works in the channel south of Long 
Sault island shall be completed within six years from the date of 
the passage of this Act, and all of such work shall be completed 
within fifteen years from the date of passage of this Act; and in 
case of failure to comply with the conditions of this section this Act 
shall be void, and the rights hereby conferred shall cease and be 



* See page 170, line 13. 
tSee page 171, line 11. 
**See page 171, Une21. 



182 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

determined: Provided, That the time of completion shall apply 
only to dams, locks, and other works necessary to or constituting 
an improvement of navigation, and which works shall have been 
approved by the proper authorities. 

Page 5, line * 19, after the word "river," insert the following: 

It is understood, and this Act is enacted on the express con- 
dition, that the state of New York shall have authority to fix from 
time to time reasonable charges for power to be furnished by the 
said Long Sault Development Company, and to regulate the service 
for the electric current to be produced by it, and that the same shall 
be furnished to all proposed consumers who apply in good faith to 
purchase the same and without unfair discrimination as to service 
and charge. 
Page 6, line f 18, after the word "property," insert the following: 

And should said Company, its successors or assigns, fail to 
maintain or operate its dam or dams, lock or locks, with such ap- 
purtenances thereto as may be necessary for navigation, in such a 
manner as to adequately provide for navigation, the United States 
Government may, under the supervision of the Secretary of War 
and the Chief of Engineers, assume jurisdiction and control over 
the maintenance and operation thereof, and in case the said Com- 
pany or its successors or assigns shall discontinue the use of the 
said dam or dams and works necessary for navigation connected 
therewith, or their ownership thereof shall terminate for any cause, 
or upon the expiration of the period of authorization granted by 
this Act, then the sole ownership therein, together with the neces- 
sary land and approaches appurtenant thereto, shall vest in the 
United States so far as the same may be located within the territory 
of the United States. It is hereby declared to be the intention of 
this Act to impose upon the Company to which the authorization is 
herein granted, its successors and assigns, the maiatenance of the 
channel or channels of the St. Lawrence river herein described in a 
form and to a degree of efficiency sufficient for the present and future 
demands of navigation, and any works herein authorized which are 
aids to navigation shall be by the said company, its successors or 
assigns, maintained for that purpose for and during the life of the 
authorization hereby granted, and the same shall be in suitable 
condition at the termiaation of this authorization for permanent 
use. The Secretary of War and Chief of Engineers are instructed 
and directed to enforce this provision and any and all provisions 
of this Act intended for the maintenance and promotion of navi- 
gation. 



* See page 171, line 39. 
t See page 172, line 7. 



APPENDIX XX 



HEARINGS ON BILL S. 10558 

February 8th 1911, to Provide for the Improvement ov 
Navigation in the St. Lawrence River and for the Cons- 
truction OP Dams, Locks, Canals, and other Appurtenant 
Structures therein at and near Long Sault, Barnhart, 
AND Sheek Islands, before the Committee on Commerce of 
THE Senate of the United States, Sixty-first Congress, 
Third Session 

THE sub-committee of the Committee on Commerce having under 
consideration the Bill S. 10558 met at 10.45 o'clock a.m. 
Present: Senators Burton (chairman), Smith of Michigan, and 
Clarke of Arkansas. 

Senator Burton: Gentlemen, there are two or three things I 
believe the sub-committee want to hear about. First, there is the 
question of the relation of the Government of Canada to this proposi- 
tion. What do you say about that? 

There is one practical question I would like to hear about. There 
was something done about this in the House yesterday, was there not ? 
This Committee, of course, does not wish to take up the question of 
this Bill if it has been turned down in the House. What was the signi- 
ficance of that action? 

Mr. Malby: Mr. Chairman, I desire to call your attention to that. 
A motion was made under the usual rule of the House to suspend the 
rules under the 20-minute proposition and pass the Bill. The House 
declined to do that, and I doubt whether there is any particular signi- 
ficance in it further than that, on the ground that it did not afford 
sufficient time for deliberation. There was a statement made on the 
floor as to which I would like to inquire of my friend Mr. Littlefield 
whether it is so or not. Congressman Sulzer, who, as it is well known, 
is from New York, made this statement. I read from the Congressional 
Record as follows: 

Mr. Sulzer : Is it not a fact that the authorities of the state 
of New York are opposed to the passage of this Bill? 

Mr. Young of Michigan: No, sir; the state of New York is 
favourable to the passage of this BiU. 



184 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

Mr. Stjlzee: I understand the state of New York at the 
present time is not in favour of this Bill, and that there is going to 
be an effort made to repeal the law which was passed a year or so 
ago. 

^ !j> ^ »!■ •!• •!• **• 

Mr. Sulzer: My information is that the state of New York 
is now opposed to this Bill. 

Mr. Sulzer: * * * I am informed the authorities of the 
state of New York at the present time are opposed to this Bill, and 
that an effort is going to be made to repeal the state charter, but 
be that as it may 

Me. Yotjng of Michigan: Will the gentleman give the source 
of his information? 

Mr. Sulzer: I refer the gentleman to the Hon. Charles E. 
Littlefield, a former member of this House. 

I would like to ask Mr. Littlefield if he made that statement; and 
if so, if he had any authority for making it? 

Mr. Littlefield: I do not care to enter into any discussion of 
what took place in the House, and do not propose to here, before this 
Committee. I shall state to the Committee the character of the op- 
position I represent when I get along to that stage of the matter. I 
have to-day a very brief time to examine this record. If I was going 
to discuss that record, there are a great many statements in it I would 
want to discuss. I am prepared, when I get around to it, to state 
the people I am authorized to present objections for. Further than 
that I do not care to state. What I prefer to do is this: I declined 
before the Committee on Rivers and Harbours of the House to enter 
into a discussion of the people who are interested, pro and con, and I 
stated that I preferred to address myself to public considerations that 
I thought were entitled to weight before the Committee. 

Mr. Malbt: That is my purpose now. The chairman of the 
Committee inquired what proceedings were had yesterday in the House. 
I thought it was pertinent, when a gentleman from New York rose on 
the floor of the House and iannounced that the State administration 
was against it, and I think it was very proper 

Mr. Littlefield : As I say, I do not care to enter upon a discus- 
sion of these questions. 

Sena'j?or Smith of Michigan: Mr. Malby, I do not think Judge 
Burton intended to curtail your right to be heard here. Of course 
we want to judge of the proposition on its merits. I would not accept 
the judgment of the House on the proposition myself. We have more 
deliberation, and ought to have as much patience as they. 

Mr. Malbt: If the members of the Committee will bear with me 
just a moment, I would like to narrow the scope of the inquiry as much 
as possible, and if the Committee agree with me, of course it can be 



HEARINGS ON BILL S. 10558 185 

narrowed; but I have not any objection to the Committee affording 
us such time as they can, and extending the inquiry in any way they 
please. Let me briefly state my position. 

Senator Clarke of Arkansas. The inquiry of the chairman has 
this significance at this time: The Senate Calendar is crowded and 
the House Calendar is crowded. If there is a definite probability that 
that Bill cannot pass the House, it would be a waste of time to make 
a draft upon our limited time for the purpose of preparing it for passage 
in the Senate. 

Mr. Male y: I appreciate that, Senator; but the matter has come 
up in that way, and a Representative from the state of New York has 
made a positive statement that the administration of the State is 
against it. I submit that if the administration of the state of New 
York is against that, it is up to Congress — these people having spent 
two or three million dollars in this enterprise — ^to afford them an op- 
portunity to be heard; and nothing of that kind has been heard. Fur- 
ther than that, I hold in my hand this telegram received by me. I 
understood something of that kind was going on. This telegram reads 
as follows: 

Albany, N.Y., February 7, 1911 
Hon. George R. Malby, 

House of Representatives, District of Columbia: 
Gov. Dix directs me to assure you that he has not interested 
himself in the matter of the Long Sault Co., and has not authorized 
any person to express for him any wish or opinion, officially or 
otherwise, regarding the Bill pending in Congress affecting such 
Company. 

E. A. MERRITT, Jr. 

E. A. Merritt, jr., is the leader of the minority of the present legis- 
lature; he was the leader of the majority before. He is a member of 
the assembly from St. Lawrence County, where this power is to be 
developed, and he is the gentleman who introduced and secured the 
passage of the Bill in the legislature of the State four years ago. 

Senator Clarke of Arkansas : Have you any provision in your 
State constitution that allows you to repeal franchises; or has it not 
passed, as a contract, beyond the control of the legislature? 

Mr. Malby: I want to say that there is no provision made, in the 
constitution or otherwise, which authorizes the legislature to repeal or 
modify an act unless the State, as I understand it, becomes respon- 
sible to the parties injured who have proceeded in good faith on the 
strength of the charter. Now, it is impossible for the state of New 
York to repeal this charter without being responsible, in my judg- 
ment, as a matter of law, to these gentlemen who have in good faith 
invested their money. 



186 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

Senator Clarke of Arkansas : That would depend altogether upon 
the reservations, either in the Act or in the State constitution. 

Mr. Malby : There is no reservation in the Act and there is none in 
the constitution. I do not recall any, Senator, which grants authority 
after a corporation has gone out in good faith and invested money, 
and where it has not in any wise violated the charter, for the State to 
repeal that charter; and no such thing is in contemplation, as you can 
very well see from this telegram from Mr. Merritt. 

By the way, the whole contest on the floor of the House, and the 
whole objection, was as to the limitation, whether it should be 50 
years or 100 years. If we had consented to the 50-year proposition, 
the Bill would have gone through. On the merits of the Bill there 
was no objection in the House, the only objection being on that 50- 
year proposition, and if we had accepted that, so far as the discussion 
went, the Bill would have been unanimously adopted. 

Mr. Littlefield: You do not mean that without qualification? 

Mr. Malby: So far as I know. That is, there was no other argu- 
ment made against the Bill. 

Mr. Littlefield : I read the Record hurriedly, but I thought there 
was. However, I do not propose to discuss that. 

Mr. Malby: There was no objection except on the 50-year propo- 
sition. 

Mr. Littlefield : I shall not take a miaute's time discussing that 
thing before the House. We are here to be heard before this Com- 
mittee. 

Mr. Malby: Let us see if we understand what is before the Com- 
mittee. 

Senator Burton : I think you had better proceed with your gen- 
eral statement. I do not think this sub-committee can decide this 
question right here. The printed hearings before the Committee on 
Rivers and Harbours have just been brought in here, and we have some 
other documents, and we will have to examine them. We would like 
to have your statements, pro and con. How much time would you 
like? 

Mr. Malby: I do not know that I care to say much, personally. I 
would like to hear Mr. Davis, the president of this Company, and per- 
haps one or two others, present it as a business matter. I shall not 
consume but just a minute of the time. 

Senator Burton: How much time do you want; say 30 minutes? 

Mr. Malby: That is long enough. 

Senator Burton: I do not think you need go into that matter 
of the action of the state of New York; I do not see that there is any 
need of that. So far as it is presented, it would seem that there was 
no basis for that contention. 



HEARINGS ON BILL S. 10558 187 

Mr. Malbt: No. 

Senator Burton : I do not know that you can offer more than a 
conjecture as to what the House will do. Was there any further action 
taken in the House yesterday beyond that dialogue? 

Mr. Malbt: None. 

Mr. Littlefield : There was a vote of 66 to 84 refusing the pas- 
sage of the BUI. 

Mr. Malby: No; they refused to suspend the rules. 

Mr. Littlefield : The vote was 66 to 84 against suspending the 
rules and passing the BUI. 

Senator Burton : It might have been because the House regarded 
other matters pending as more important. There is no inference to be 
derived from the refusal to take up the BUI, except what appears in the 
Record, is there? 

Mr. Malbt : No, sir ; I think the Record stands for that, so far as it 
has been written. I do discover, Mr. Chairman, however — 

Senator Clarke of Arkansas: Was there a vote on that motion 
to suspend the rules? 

Mr. Malbt: There was no roll call on the matter; it was simply 
a standing vote. 

Senator Clarke of Arkansas : Mr. Littlefield said the vote was 66 
to 84. 

Mr. Littlefield: Yes, that is in the Record. 

Mr. Malbt: There was no roll call at all; it was merely a standing 
vote. 

Senator Clarke of Arkansas. Well, we have about an hour this 
morning for this hearing. 

Senator Burton : Thirty minutes. 

Mr. Malbt: I do not know that I want more than 30 minutes. 

Senator Burton : I mean 30 minutes to each side. 

Mr. Littlefield : It wUl be impossible for me to present this case 
within that limit of time. I wUl do whatever the Committee say; but 
it is absolutely impossible for me to make an adequate presentation of 
what the Committee ought to consider in 30 minutes. 

Senator Clarke of Arkansas. We wanted to have it ready for the 
whole Committee to-morrow. Of course, if you gentlemen want it to 
go over for another week it may do so. 

Mr. Littlefield : I am going to submit myself entirely to the wUl 
of the Committee. I want to say that I cannot present adequately 
before the Committee the points that the Committee ought to consider, 
if I have only 30 minutes. I wUl do what the Committee wish. If you 
should give me 10 minutes, I wUl do what I can in 10 minutes; but I 
must have the record show that I cannot present adequately the con- 
siderations that in my judgment ought to be presented in 30 minutes. 



188 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

Senator Burton: Mr. Littlefield, you must realize that it is late 
in the short session and that we are all of us exceedingly busy, and 30 
minutes is a fair amount of time for the presentation of questions 
pending before a committee of the Senate. There has already been a 
hearing in which a considerable amount of time has been given to each 
side. Now, if there is something that you cannot complete in the oral 
argument, why of course you can present it to us in a brief. I do not 
think this ought to go beyond to-day; but you can supplement your 
remarks by a brief, and we will all of us read that. I speak, I think, 
advisedly on that. 

Mr. Littlefield : I am going to be entirely under the direction 
of the Committee. 

Senator Burton:, I think 30 minutes is sufficient. Now, if you 
will, please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE R. MALBY, A REPRESENTA- 
TIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Mr. Malbt: I shall occupy just a minuie or two of the time. If 
I am correct, gentlemen, with reference to the issues which are involved 
here, they are simply these: What does Congress want this company 
to do to conserve navigation ? If I am correct about it, there is no other 
question pending before Congress, and there can be no other. All 
the questions which have led up to the passage of this Act and our 
presence here are matters which legally and legitimately and properly 
have belonged before, and have been passed upon, by other tribunals. 
I do not mean in any wise to shut the door, if the gentlemen of the com- 
mittee want to investigate any of these matters or if it is profitable. 
They certainly have our consent, and will have our co-operation in 
getting all the information they want; and when they get right down 
to the final analysis, this Committee acts as the Committee on Rivers 
and Harbours had the right to act, under that clause of the Constitution 
which authorizes Congress to regulate commerce. I take it that that 
is the only reason why a corporation organized under the laws of the 
state of New York is here; indeed, it is the only reason why a corpora- 
tion organized under the laws of any State would be here. 

Whatever you gentlemen iu your good judgment say is necessary 
to conserve navigation. I feel that I may say the parties are willing 
to concede whatever it may be that you want done. If I am correct, 
and I think I am, we are here only to have the Committee say what 
in their judgment shall conserve navigation. We have put ourselves 
under the general dam act, we have put ourselves under the jurisdiction 
of the Secretary of War, we have placed ourselves under the jurisdiction 
of the Chief of Engineers of the United States Army, we have outlined 



HEARINGS ON BILL S. 10558 189 

the plan of operation. The International Waterways Commission 
passed upon this; the Chief of Engineers of the United States Army 
passed upon it and still has control of it. 

Senator Burton: What was the finding of the International 
Waterways Commission in regard to it? 

Mr. Littlefield : They were equally divided on it. 

Mr. Davis: The American section? 

Mr. Littlefield: The American section one way and the Can- 
adian section the other way. 

Mr. Malby: Oh, well, Mr. Chairman, I am talking about the 
people of the United States; that is all that this Bill attempts to deal 
with. 

It would be difficult, not to say unprofitable, to speculate as to 
what the Canadian authorities would do if this matter was presented to 
them. The matter must of necessity be presented to the Canadian 
authorities; and we would like to eliminate, if we could, any speculation 
as to what Canada would do, when we get to them. 

Senator Burton : You concede that for the construction of these 
works the consent of the Canadian Government is necessary? 

Mr. Malby: Absolutely essential, sir. There will be no work done 
in the United States of America unless Canada consents. This is one 
job, Mr. Chairman, or it is nothing. 

Senator Burton: Your theory is this, that rather than to work 
this out by treaty agreement or arrangement, it is better to have 
concurrent legislation by the United States and Canada? 

Mr. Malby: I can conceive of only one way in which it can legally 
and constitutionally be worked out. 

Senator Burton : That is, a treaty might come in conflict with the 
control of Congress over interstate commerce; is that your idea? 

Mr. Malby: It certainly would; it woiild come in conflict with 
personal rights. 

Now, while the Government of the United States has the undoubted 
right, in the interests of navigation, to go to this point and spend 
$40,000,000, it is the evidence of the engineers, which is before you, 
that it would cost the Government substantially the same amount of 
money to put in these dams that it will cost this Company, if they 
were to improve navigation. In other words, it would cost $40,000,000. 
Consider the absurdity of the Government undertaking to do such a 
thing, considering the limited anaount of navigation, and particularly 
when they can get everything that they would have then, without 
paying anything for it. 

Senator Burton: This point was touched upon briefly in the 
prior hearings. It is the usual custom, when Congress makes pro- 
vision for the improvement of navigation, to require, preliminary to 



190 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

any legislation, a detailed survey; a statement of the size of the channel, 
its depth and width, and all conditions pertaining thereto. What do 
you say of the proposed omission of these preliminary steps? 

Mr. Malby: Mr. Chairman, I do not concede that there has been 
an entire omission. If this Committee desires any possible detail with 
regard to the width of that river at any point, or the depth of water at 
any point, we can point it out to the chairman, and it is on file, and the 
Secretary of War and the Chief of Engineers have it all on file. I do not 
see that any further surveys can possibly be required. Everything has 
been done. The surveys are all in the oflSce of the Secretary of War 
and in the office of the Chief of Engineers. They have been carefully 
compiled here. But if anything further is required, there will be no 
possible objection to putting into the Bill a proposition that before 
anything is done, complete and absolute surveys made by the United 
States engineers shall be had. Mr. Chairman and gentleman of the 
Committee, we do not care a snap what it is, we invite the placing in 
this Bill of anything that you want in order to conserve navigation, 
anything within the bounds of human reason; and we conceive that 
that is the only question that is really before us. The other questions 
, have been passed upon by the state of New York in advance. But if 
the chairman or the members of the Committee should desire to have 
those questions discussed — ^which I do not regard as requisite at all, it 
simply clouds the issue — ^we would be glad to do it. 

Here stands a company, for the first time in the history of the 
world, which proposes to expend $40,000,000 in the development of 
this great water-power. It is like finding a gold mine or a coal mine 
in the country, and we want to get to work at it, and we want this 
Committee to. say on what terms we may go to work. 

Now, what about the Ashburton treaty? I have not paid much 
attention to that; it is one of the things that is thrown at you as you 
pass by. That provides that the St. Lawrence river shall never be 
obstructed without the consent of the contracting parties. This pro- 
vides that the Dominion of Canada must of necessity concur in this 
improvement, or there is nothing in the Ashburton treaty. 

Senator Burton: Just there, do I understand you to concede 
that no steps can be taken by this Company without the full consent 
of the Dominion of Canada? 

Mk. Malby: I take it that that is absolutely correct; that is on 
International waters. I think that it would be utterly impossible for 
us to take any step whatever in the construction of any dams without 
the concurrence of the Canadian Government. So, therefore, I eliminate 
whatever opposition there may be in Canada. We must go to that 
tribunal, and let us not befog ourselves by details which will arise there. 



HEARINGS ON BILL S. 10558 191 

» 
We are trying to create conditions under which we can proceed under 
the laws of the United States. 

We have done more than any other water company was ever organ- 
ized to do, or more than any that was ever organized in the United 
States. At the present time the United States Government, at Troy, 
N.Y., is putting in a dam which is to cost a million or two of dollars, 
at its own expense, which it will operate at its own expense, with no 
cost to the locality; and a power dam, at that, in part, the same as 
this is. The state of New York is canaliziag the whole Hudson river, 
without any request upon the Congress of the United States, for nearly 
100 miles. It has gotten no authority whatever from the Government. 
Why? Because it seems to be the opinion of the learned lawyers that 
it was not necessary and is not necessary to ask the consent of the 
Government of the United States to anything, except to have their 
concurrence with reference to the improvement of navigation; and in 
that event, even, the State has the right to go on unless the Govern- 
ment interferes. They have taken the chance that the Government 
would not interfere with the improvement of the Mohawk river, and 
they are going ahead with it. But we do not want to take any such 
chance. We want the consent of the Government and we want the 
Government to tell us what to do. Is not that a fair proposition? 

That is about all I have got to say. This Ashburton treaty pro- 
vides what? Does anybody suggest that that treaty provides that 
for countless ages there shall be no improvement of the St. Lawrence 
river? Was it intended as an obstruction of the improvement of 
navigation? Certainly not. It was intended that one Government 
or the other could find fault if obstructions were put in the river which 
were not in the interest of navigation; but it never was intended, if 
the proposition was clear, if it was in the interest of navigation, that 
there should not be any improvement of the river; and that fact has 
been certified to by such distinguished engineers as Mr. Freeman, who 
is the consulting engineer of the Panama canal, who has been down 
there twice with the President of the United States, and Mr. Noble, one 
of the greatest engineers in the country. They both testified, as anyone 
could see who went there, that this would be a vast improvement of 
navigation. 

Senator Smith, of Michigan: Mr. Malby, is this project affected 
in any way by the new boundary treaty between the United States and 
Canada? 

Mr. Malbt : Not at all, except that we provide in the Bill itself 
that we must go to them. 

Senator Smith, of Michigan: I understand you mean under the 
new treaty? 

Mr. Malbt: Under the new treaty. 



192 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

Senator Smith, of Michigan: You must have their sanctiok? 

Mr. Malby: We must have their sanction. We are coming to 
Congress now, because we would not have an3i;hing to present to them 
unless we did. We are taking the next step. 

I think that is all from me, Mr. Chairman. I would like to hear 
from Mr. Littlefield his outline of the issues; and then, if anything 
develops, I would like to call on Mr. Freeman, our engineer, and Mr. 
Davis, who is the president of the Company, and also I would like you 
to hear Mr. McCarthy, from Toronto, upon any Canadian questions that 
might arise, and perhaps somebody else. I think I have consumed about 
10 minutes. 

Senator Burton: A little more than that. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. LITTLEFIELD 

Mr. Littlefield: Mr. Chairman, I am ready to reply to Brother 
Malby on this branch of the case, and then I want to take all the time 
I have left on another matter. 

Senator Burton: Proceed in your own way. 

Mr. Littlefield: Very well. First, on this let me say, as perhaps 
clearing up very briefly the atmosphere of the case so far as the Com- 
mittee is concerned, the matter pending before the Committee is a 
matter, as I trust the Committee fully appreciates, of importance and 
consequence. It is an international proposition, and the Canadian 
Government has taken some interest in the question. I want to read 
to you from the debate in the House of Commons under the date of 
February 2, 1911, from a statement made by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the 
Canadian premier. He says: 

When we heard of this Bill being introduced at Washington we 
put ourselves into communication with the British ambassador to 
remonstrate; and correspondence is going on now upon the subject. 
He says further, in response to an inquiry, as follows: 

Mr. Reid (Grenville) : Did I understand the prime minister 
to say that he had already protested to British Ambassador Bryce 
against the passage of this Bill in Washington? 

Sir Wilfrid Laurier: We made representations; yes. 

That is aU I know about that. Of course that is public informa- 
tion. 'That was stated in the Dominion Parliament on the 2nd of 
February. 

On account of the limited time, Mr. Chairman, I shall not stop to 
read some telegram^ that I have here or some papers which I have, 
which I will place in the record that is to be made by Mr. Johnson, 
who represents us both here in reporting stenographically what is being 
said here this morning. 



HEARINGS ON BILL S. 10558 193 

I have here a telegram requesting me to respectfully present to the 
Committee the protests of the following organizations, and I feel bound 
to do that before I proceed with the discussion. They are as follows, 
and I will put into the record a copy of their protests: 

Montreal, Quebec, February 7, 1911 
Hon. Chas. E. Littlefield, 

New Willard Hotel, Washington, D.C.: 
We, the undersigned, acting for our respective organizations, 
ask that you enter our respectful protest before the Committee on 
Commerce of the United States Senate against the passage of the 
pending Bill in the interest of the Long Sault Development Co. 

JAS. J. GUERIN 

Mayor of Montreal 

ROBT. W. REFORD 

First Vice-President Board of Trade 

FRED. C. LARIVIERE 

La Chambre de Commerce 

L. F. GEOFFRION 
Acting President Harbour Commissioners 

J. H. SHERRARD 
Vice-Chairman Canadian Manufacturers' Association 

H. LAPORTE 

President Montreal Citizens' Association 

ANDREW A. ALLAN 
President the Shipping Federation of Canada 

L. L. HENDERSON 

Montreal Transportation Co 

GEORGE CAVERHILL 
Richelieu & Ontario Navigation Co. 

Senator Clarke of Arkansas : What is the ground of their oppo- 
sition? 

Mr. Littlefield: The telegram says: 

Enter our respectful protest before the Committee against 

passage of pending Bill. 

That is without going into details as to the reasons. That has all 
been dealt with by telegraphic correspondence within the last day or 
two. 

The Montreal Board of Trade state their reasons a little more fully, 
and if Senator Clarke will excuse me, I will put this into the record 
without reading it. 

Senator Clarke of Arkansas : I would like to know, in a general 
way, what the objection is. 

Mr. Littlefield: They summarize in this way: 

13 



194 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

That in event of any works being constructed in an inter- 
national channel, that these works should be constructed, owned, 
and controlled for all time by the respective Governments. 

Senator Clarke of Arkansas : That is a matter of policy that they 
have not got an3rthing to do with. 

Mr. Littletield: They own half of it. 

Senator Clarke of Arkansas: The Canadian Government can do 
that; but it does not seem to have anything to do with it. 

Mr. Littlefield: That is the reason why they protest here. This 
is an International waterway, and they said it should not be obstructed 
unless approved and agreed upon by the two Governments. 

Senator Clarke of Arkansas: There are a good many people in- 
terested in this project. If this comes from the Canadian Government, 
it has one significance; whereas, coming from private individuals, it 
may have another. 

Mr. Littlefield: Yes; and the Committee will notice, as we dis- 
cuss this, that I propose to appeal to the Committee from the standpoint 
of higher legislation and international ethics. 

Mr. Clarke of Arkansas : Is that objection open to you, unless you 
represent the Canadian Government? 

Mr. Littlefield: I present a petition here — 

Senator Clarke of Arkansas: But have they not got complete 
control of that part which is in their own Government? Have you 
a right to interpose that objection? 

Mr. Littlefield: But this Bill proposes to deliberately construct 
these works without their consent! I disagree entirely with my learned 
friend in regard to that. 

Senator Clarke of Arkansas: That is, bringing about a condition 
that might result in correspondence? 

Mr. Littlefield: Yes; I say that it is actually proposed to allow 
this corporation to build a dam south of the International Boundary hne, 
without the consent of Canada. 

Senator Clarke of Arkansas: South of it? 

Mr. Littlefield: Yes; In distinct violation of the treaty con- 
ditions. 

Senator Clarke of Arkansas: Do you contend that that part of 
the water in the St. Lawrence river which runs exclusively in Amer- 
ican territory must run uselessly forever, then? Canada has prop- 
erly exercised the right to construct the Cornwall canal. Do you 
mean to say that we can not deal with our own side so long as what we 
do, does not obstruct the main channel of the river? 

Mr. Littlefield: I propose to address myself to that proposition. 
I disagree entirely with Brother Malby as to this; but if he is right the 
legislative history of this BiU fails signally to disclose his real inten- 



HEARINGS ON BILL S. 10558 195 

tion. I am going to confine myself to matters right here before the 
Committee. I was only giving this, Senator Clarke, as the reasons 
suggested by the Montreal Board of Trade. They say further: 

That in the event of the development of water-powers on an 
International waterway there shall be a proper division of the 
power, and that the construction of the works shall be such that 
each country shall be able to develop the full quota of power to 
which it is entitled in its own territory. 

That in the event of constructing new canals and locks that 
same shall be built in Canadian territory, where the channel now 
is, and not on the New York State side. 

This is dated February 6, 1911. I am simply reading it for what 
it is worth. I shaU not stop to discuss it. I have other protests that 
I am requested to present, and without stopping, I will put them into 
the record that is taken by the stenographer. I trust that your honours 
will perceive that, so far as I am concerned, I look upon these matters 
as immaterial. To my mind it is a matter of very little consequence 
whom I happen to represent here, or what their particular interests are. 
If I am able to present considerations here which are entitled to weight, 
the considerations will speak for themselves. No matter whom I re- 
present, no matter how many interests may be involved, no matter 
how much capital may be behind them, no matter whether they are on 
the Canadian side or on the American side, that adds no weight, I take 
it, to what I say here. What I say here, Mr. Chairman, I trust will be 
taken upon the weight of the suggestions I may make, predicated upon 
the facts I state. If I am able to suggest important public considera- 
tions here predicated upon well-known facts, that should deter or delay 
the action of the Committee, so be it. Nothing is added to or taken away 
from the weight by the fact that anybody is or is not represented. Of 
course, I have a standing here, and the Committee are anxious to learn — 
and it is very proper — ^as to who may be making protests here. While 
as an individual I would have a right to come here personally and make 
this statement as a matter of fact I represent these gentlemen. I do not 
mean to say that I am retained by these gentlemen, all of them, to 
present these protests. We went through all that in the Committee on 
Rivers and Harbours of the House, and I do not propose to take any 
time on that. I am going to devote myself to the considerations that 
the Committee are interested in. The only use you have here for me this 
morning is to see whether or not I can shed any light on this situation, 
and be of any aid to the Committee in reaching a proper conclusion, 
and it is going to be my purpose to address myself to that, and if I 
swing outside and address myself to any other consideration, it is not 
my intention to do so. 

Senator Burton: That all goes without saying. 



196 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

Mr. Littlefield: Yes. Now, to come right to the point, what is 
the Ashburton treaty? I stated to the Committee the other day that 
there is nothing in that treaty that as a legal proposition inhibits any 
action on the part of Congress. You are all lawyers, and are familiar 
with that legal proposition. But there is a contractual agreement 
between the United States and Canada which the people I represent 
believe is being infringed by the legislation in its present shape. Now 
let me call attention to the Ashburton treaty. I beg your honours to 
note the significance of the language, and if I only have time in these 30 
minutes to discuss this proposition, I propose, so far as I can, to discuss 
it fully, and it is of no use for me to stand here and make a few state- 
ments without covering the subject so that I can be of service to the 
Committee. 

Senator Clarke of Arkansas: Direct your remarks to the doubt 
that is raised in my mind. I will present it in this way. Here is a 
scheme for an independent legislative solution of this question. This 
scheme must be presented to the Canadian authorities, and they can 
turn it down if they want to. The question of the treaty does not come 
into it, because it is taken up de novo and dealt with as an independent 
proposition. That treaty does not widen or decrease our right to say 
that we do not propose to deal with you on that basis. 

Mr. Littlefield: No; but I submit this to the Senator, that if 
there is legislation pending here that can be made effective without the 
consent of Canada, and all that is proposed here can be done without 
consulting her, thit is another proposition. 

Senator Clarke of Arkansas : Yes . 

Mr. Littlefield: I am going to try to demonstrate that. Now, 
what is the Ashburton treaty? My proposition predicated upon that 
is that this legislation that is pending here is a violation of the agree- 
ment. I concede we have the power to violate it. I do not concede 
that we have the right to violate it. Do I make the distinction clear 
between the legal power and the moral right? Now, how does it read? 
It is necessary to make a logical statement of my position. What is it ? 
This treaty reads: 

It is further agreed that the channels in the river St. Lawrence, 
on both sides of the Long Sault islands and of Barnhart island; 
the channels in the river Detroit, on both sides of the island Bois 
Blanc, and between that island and both the American and Can- 
adian shores; and all the several channels and passages between 
the various islands IjTng near the junction of the river St. Clair 
with the lake of that name, shall be equally free and open to the 
ships, vessels, and boats of both parties. 

Now, mark the significance of it. The only place on the river St. 
Lawrence that is made the subject matter of this International agree- 
ment is the specific spot that these people propose to improve. The 



HEARINGS ON BILL S. 10558 197 

treaty does not apply to one channel. We had some discussion the 
other day as to whether that long dam was within or without the 
territory of the United States, if the line was properly drawn; but this 
treaty and International agreement does not apply to one channel, but 
to both channels, Mr. Chairman, on both sides of the Long Sault; that 
is, the channel on the upper side and the channel on the lower side. 
They propose to build a power-house and dam across the lower channel 
on one side of the Long Salilt islands. Now, it is of no consequence to 
me, so far as this question is concerned, whether or not the long dam is 
within the territory of the United States. My judgment is that it is. 
I will not take the time here to discuss it; but I have a letter here from 
Gen. Ernst, and I will read it to you. I inquired of him as to whether 
or not the line had been located. Some suggestion was made here the 
other day that the dotted line did not indicate the accurate line. Gen. 
Ernst says: 

February 7, 1911 

C. E. LiTTLEFIELD, EsQ., 

The New Willard, Washington, D.C. 

Dear Sir: In reply to the inquiry contained in your letter 
of the 6th instant, you are respectfully informed that the Inter- 
national Boundary line near the head of Long Sault rapids, in the 
St. Lawrence river, has never been actually located upon the 
_ ground. Under Article IV of the treaty between the United States 
and Great Britain, signed April 11, 1908, the International Water- 
ways Commission is authorized to ascertain and re-establish and 
mark upon the ground the boundary line at this place. It has 
begun the work but has not completed it. 

Yours very respectfully, 

0. H. ERNST 
Brigadier General, United States Army, retired, 
Chairman of American Section, International Waterways 
Commission. 

That is all I know about it. But it is not material. The treaty 
specifically provides that the channels " on both sides of the Long Sault 
islands and of Barnhart island " — which covers this precise territory — 
shall be kept open; and it is a little significant that the only place on 
the whole St. Lawrence river that the treaty makers found it necessary 
to enter into an agreement in relation to is this specific spot where, this 
power is now proposed to be developed. 

Senator Burton: Suppose, Mr. Littlefield, the Government of the 
United States should dredge in that channel, would that be a violation 
of that treaty? 

Mr. Littdepield: No; I do not think it would, because it would 
still be open. If it is kept free and open, it would not be a violation. 



I98 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

Senatok' Burton: Is it not true that the construction of a lock, 
while nominally an obstruction, is nevertheless, or might nevertheless 
be, an improvement to navigation? 

Mk. Littlefield: That is quite true, but — 

Senator Burton: So far as the actual result is concerned, the 
substance and not the form of the treaty ought to be regarded? 

Mb. Littlefield: That is quite true. But apply that to this 
existing condition before us. Here is an International agreement that 
the channel shall be kept open. What is it now proposed to do ? The 
United States proposes to shut it up and then re-open it in accordance 
with its own judgment, without getting the assent and concurrence of 
Canada. 

Senator Burton: Then would you say that an improvement of 
navigation by the construction of a lock which would utilize the channel 
for navigation was a violation of the treaty? That is, it might not be 
navigable at all before the lock was constructed, and after the lock was 
constructed it would be available to navigation; but notwithstanding 
that, it would be a violation of the treaty? 

Mr. Littlefield: Yes, I get your point, exactly. Of course the 
treaty relates to this specific spot. I say that after the United States 
and Great Britain have entered into a solemn International agreement 
that that river should be kept open, it is not open to either Canada or 
the United States to change the status of either of those channels by 
any scheme that either one may of itself decide may be wise or unwise 
without the consent or concurrence of the other. It is not open to the 
United States to say, " We have devised a scheme that, in our judgment, 
wiU be as good as it would, or better than it would have been to have left 
the channel open." 

Senator Clarke of Arkansas: Would not your point be made 
clear by putting into this a provision that it is not to become effective 
until the other Government agrees to it ? 

Mr. Littlefield: Yes, sir; that answers the whole thing. 

Senator Clarke of Arkansas. That is what they say they expect, 
to get the Canadian Government to agree to it. 

Mr. Littlefield: Well, but they do not do it, and that they 
deliberately propose not to do it I state now with the legislation right 
before me. Now, why do I say that? Let me call your honour's 
attention to it. I agree with you perfectly. Let me give you the 
legislative history in regard to this matter. It may be that I can- 
not read the English language, but I have never been successfully 
charged with that inability, nor with the inability to use it for the pur- 
pose of expressing my thoughts. The Bill introduced by Mr. Malby was 
introduced December 14, 1909. 

Senator Clarke of Arkansas: That is not the one before us. 



HEARINGS ON BILL S. 10558 199 

Mr. Littlefield: No; but it is significant as bearing upon the 
history. It says that the Act shall become effective from the date 
of consent of the proper authorities of the United States and Canada. 
Mark this language: 

from the date of the consent of the proper authorities of the United 
States of America and the Dominion of Canada to the construction 
of said works, or of the approval of the plans and specifications and 
location and accessory works thereof; and this Act shall not be 
construed as authorizing said company, its successors or assigns, 
to construct the said dams, canals, locks, and other works until 
such consent and approval shall be obtained. 

Do you find that in the Bill before you? Not by any means; not 
the slightest reference to it. It distinctly eliminates it. No; this 
Bill was submitted, as I want to show your honours, to Gen. Ernst, of 
the Board of Engineers, and he referred to this particular section of 
this Bill that is pending in the House, H. R. 14531.* March 11, 1910, 
was the date of this report: Gen. Ernst says: 

The Bill referred to us seems to recognize the necessity of co- 
operation between the two Governments, but it does so in a vague 
way, and is much less explicit than it should be. A separate 
section should be introduced, worded as follows : 

"Section — . This act shall not become operative until the 
Government of the Dominion of Canada shall signify to the Secre- 
tary of State of the United States its consent to the construction 
of such dam and other structures: Provided, That if said consent 
be not given within two years from the date of this Act, then this 
Act shall be null and void." 

Does this BiU pending before you comply with the recommendation 
of Gen Ernst? Not in the slightest degree; not for a moment. There 
is not a suggestion or hint in it. 

Mb. Malbt: To whom was that addressed? 

Me. Littlefield: To Hon. D. S. Alexander, chairman Committee 
on Rivers and Harbours, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. 

Mr. Malbt: What document is that in? 

Mk. Littlefield: This is the Sixth Progress Report of the Inter- 
national Waterways Commission. It is signed by aU three members 
of the American section — Ernst, Clinton, and HaskeU. Now, if you 
put into this substantially what Gen. Ernst recommends here, that 
obviates every objection I am now making from this point of view. 
The suggestion of the Senator from Arkansas is precisely pat on that 
proposition. 

Now, what does this BiU do? Let me rather say, what does it 
purport to do ? I will read from the report made by Mr. Young, chair- 
man of the sub-committee in the House on this. He says : 



See Appendix IV, pp. 68, 69. 



200 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

It is believed to be probable that under the terms of that 
treaty the consent and approval of the International Waterways 
Commission, provided for therein, will have to be obtained before 
the work can begia. 

Now let me read to your honours the provisions of the treaty. 

Senator Burton: What treaty? There have been two. 

Mr. Littlefield: Yes; this is the very last treaty, the treaty 
referred to in the BiU. The Bill before you does not provide that this 
work be approved by the International Waterways Commission, as my 
brother Malby inadvertently asserted. What does it provide? Let 
your honours note the significance. It is a very great pleasure to 
me to present these suggestions to gentlemen for whom I do not have to 
elaborate them, because you can appreciate the suggestions as we go 
along. What is the provision? It is as follows: 

Sec. 2. That said Long Sault Development Company, its 
successors and assigns, shall be subject to the provisions of the 
treaty between the United States and Great Britain relative to the 
boundary waters between the United States and Canada proclaimed 
by the President of the United States on the thirteenth day of 
May, nineteen hundred and ten. 

That makes them subject to the provisions of the treaty. It does 
not make the operation of the BiU subject to the consent of the Com- 
mission. Note that. It simply puts them under the provisions of the 
treaty. It falls short. My brother Malby might perhaps have thought 
that it did. Mr. Young said that it was probable that it did. 

Senator Smith of Michigan: It must invoke the consent of the 
Commission? 

Mr. Littlefield: Let me just read to your honours, so that you 
will see how far from effective this treaty is. Now, there are two 
paragraphs to that treaty that relate to the flow and the building of 
dams, paragraphs 3 and 4. Of course your honours will excuse me if 
I do not read them in detail. I will simply state them in substance 
here, and I will simply refer your honours to the language of the treaty, 
if you desire to go further in the investigation. 

Senator Burton : I think we are familiar with it. 

Me. Littlefield: Yes. 

Senator Burton : We considered it three or four weeks. 

Senator Clarke of Arkansas : I would like to know whether the 
Government of Canada has delegated to that Commission its right 
to consent; if it has delegated it, in the general form, the power to 
consent. 

Mr. Littlefield: I am going to read that to you right now, so 
that you can see how much is accomplished in this BUI by putting in 
the new provision, subjecting them not to the provisions of the agree- 
ment but to the provisions of the treaty only. Articles III and IV of 



HEARINGS ON BILL S. 10558 201 

this treaty are the two articles that relate to the flowing, and the 
building of dams. Article VIII is the article that provides what can be 
done. The provision is as follows : 

This International Joint Gommission shall have jurisdiction 
over and shall pass upon all cases involving the use or obstruction 
or diversion of the waters with respect to which under Articles III 
and IV of this treaty the approval of this Gommission is required. 

Now let me read what the approval is, so that your honours can 
see what it means. The last paragraph of Article VIII says : 

The majority of the commissioners shall have power to render 
a decision. 

Of course that means that if these questions are submitted to the 
Commission and a majority of the Gommission agree, it settles it. Now 
then, what? Suppose they do not happen to agree; what then? Let 
us see if anjrthing is settled. 

In case the Gommission is equally divided upon any question 
presented to it for decision separate reports shall be made by the 
commissioners on each side to their own Government. 

You do not get anywhere up to that point. 

The High Contracting Parties shall thereupon endeavor to 
agree upon an adjustment of the question or matter of difference, 
and if an agreement is reached between them it shall be reduced to 
writing in the form of a protocol and shall be communicated to the 
commissioners, who shall take such further proceedings as may be 
necessary to carry out such agreement. 

What does that mean? What is the whole purport of that section? 
The whole purport is that if this Act, for instance, goes to the Com- 
mission and all of the American section and one of the Canadian sec- 
tion assent to it, it goes. But suppose they divide; what happens 
then ? No agreement is reached. It then goes to the High Contracting 
Parties if no agreement is reached. Still we do not get anywhere. 
Then you have no decision from your Gommission. Up to this date, 
unfortunately, this Gommission has happened to divide equally, the 
Americans upon one side and the Canadians upon the other, and if that 
was the result in this case there would not be any decision. Then what 
does this Act provide? Mark you, this is the provision of the treaty 
under which this Act proposes to proceed; if you do not get a majority 
you do not get any decision. Now, what does the Act provide? 

Senator Clarke of Arkansas: The treaty says that the High 
Contracting Parties shall decide. 

Mr. Littlefield : Yes, but if the High Contracting Parties do not 
agree, then you do not get anywhere. Just a moment, and I will get 
to the Senator's question. I am more than pleased to have you make 



202 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

inquiries as we go along. Let me read this. Bear in mind, now, that 
this present Bill deliberately omits the provisions that require the 
approval of the Dominion of Canada, and simply refers to a treaty 
under which, unless a majority of the Commission agree, no result is 
reached one way or the other, leaving them right where they began. 
Let me go back to the Act. What does the Act say? It says that they 
are hereby 

authorized to construct, maintain, and operate for navigation, 
water-power, and other purposes for a period of ninety-nine years 
a dam or dams in so much of the St. Lawrence river as lies south of 
the International Boundary line between the United States of 
America and the Dominion of Canada, near Long Sault, Barnhart, 
and Sheek islands — 

Now, mark you — 

either independently — 

What does that mean? It means what it says, does it not? 

either independently or in connection with like works now erected 
or to be erected in so much of said river as lies north of said Inter- 
national Boundary line, with a bridge or bridges and approaches 
thereto, etc. 

What does that mean? If there is no agreement on the part of 
this International Waterways Commission, if they divide equally, 
what then? There is no decision. The Act does not require the approval 
of the Commission; it simply puts in operation this peculiar machinery. 
They may not land anywhere, and may not produce any result. And 
then what? They have to go back to the Act with their authority and 
proceed independently. Then what? Then we come to the Ashburton 
treaty, which is an International agreement, which says that this river 
shall be kept open. We propose now to say — the United States does — 
that notwithstanding we have entered into a solemn agreement with 
Canada that this particular spot on the St. Lawrence river shall be kept 
for all time free and open, we will close it and re-open it in a way that we 
think is going to be advantageous to us and to them without their consent 
and without their approval. 

Senator Clarke of Arkansas: Why does this subsequent treaty 
supersede the particular provisions of the Ashburton treaty, so far as 
they are in conflict ? 

Mr. Littlefield: Yes; but if your honour please, unless a ma- 
jority of the Commission agree — 

Senator Smith of Michigan: Both treaties were made by Eng- 
land? 

Mr. Littlefield: Yes; but unless the Commission agree under this 
last treaty — 



HEARINGS ON BILL S. 10558 203 

Senator Smith of Michigan: These two treaties are not inhar- 
monious as they stand. 

Me. Littlefield: Yes; the Senator is right about that. 

Senator Smith of Michigan: Assuming this to be International 
water, which of course is admitted, anything that arose by way of 
controversy that might find its way to this Commission would be 
adjusted by the Commission, of course, and they would go ahead in 
their own way without legislative enactment. 

Mr. Littlefield : Provided a majority agreed. 

Senator Smith of Michigan: Provided a majority agreed. 

Mr. Littlefield : And if they divided equally, no result would be 
reached. 

Senator Smith of Michigan: Now, do you contend that this Act 
of Congress would operate to supersede the effect of the treaty? 

Mr. Littlefield : Yes. Do you ask me, now, whether as a legal 
proposition it can do that? 

Senator Smith of Michigan: Yes; as a legal proposition. 

Mr. Littlefield: There is no question about it. There are a 
basketful of authorities that I can present to you. I stated that to 
Senator Clarke the other day. There is no question but what, undei 
our form of legislation and government, the legislative and treaty- 
making powers are equal in power and authority, and that the last 
declaration is the one that governs. A treaty may be negotiated, 
and if it is inconsistent with previous legislation, the treaty for the 
time being prevails. If Congress afterwards legislates inconsistently 
with the treaty, pro tanto, for the time being, the legislation supersedes 
the treaty. I think there is no doubt about that. I know the impres- 
sion that prevails, and it is natural for us to believe that an international 
agreement involving public faith and the integrity of the public honour 
should, of course, control so far as legislative power is concerned; but 
I think it is well settled, and if you have any doubt about it I can give 
you authorities. I do not know but the chairman may be familiar with 
that proposition, but I think it is entirely settled, so that concede, for 
the purposes of this argument, if the Senator from Michigan pleases, 
that you have the power to pass legislation — 

Senator Clarke of Arkansas: We have not got the power to pass 
legislation that will authorize any corporation of the United States to 
invade a single square inch of Canadian territory. 

Mr. Littlefield: No; you are right about that. And that is one 
of the inherent difficulties involved in this controversy, because this 
goes away beyond the question of a development of power and con- 
servation of navigation. Here is a great people on the other side of 
this river who are entitled to consideration, and no man sitting in the 
Senate of the United States would pretend to pass upon these questions 



204 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

without considering the rights and interests of the people on the other 
side of this river. Especially under present conditions, when such 
vigorous efforts are being made to create warmer and more fraternal 
relations, by treaty and otherwise, it is hardly the thing for the Senate 
of the United States to pass such legislation here, even if it has the 
power. 

Senatob Glabke of Arkansas : It is a question of power. We can- 
not invade the territory of Canada or authorize any corporation to do it. 

Mr. Littlefield: Yes. 

Senator Clarke of Arkansas : By the passage of a law we cannot 
do it. Then the question is. Have we done it? 

Mr. Littlefield : Yes; but if you will allow me for a moment, the 
Ashburton treaty goes beyond the principle of law that would be 
involved — 

Senator Clarke of Arkansas: Take this pending reciprocity 
agreement. It proposes to take effect by means of concurrent statutes, 
instead of a treaty. 

Mr. Littlefield: Yes. 

Senator Clarke of Arkansas: Now, what objection can there be 
to Congress passing any kind of a law it wants to, and submitting it to 
this tribunal which specifically exercises the authority of Canada, and 
having it accepted or rejected. What can be the objection to passing 
legislation that cannot have any effect unless it is so accepted? 

Mr. Littlefield : That general suggestion applies in full force to 
this Bill if the Senate would add 'to this Bill the clause suggested 
by Gen. Ernst making this Act inoperative without the consent of 
Canada. 

Senator Clarke of Arkansas: I understand that these parties 
here understand that the consent of Canada has to be gotten, and that 
they do not intend to proceed without it. 

Mr. Littlefield: Yes; but the joke about it is that they have 
got their legislation deliberately framed to accomplish the other result. 

Senator Clarke of Arkansas : Then, Canada can pass an Act that 
will authorize the invasion of our territory. Turn it around and look 
at it from that point. 

Mr. Littlefield: If it is a question of physical invasion, of 
course, I know, so far as physical invasion is concerned, they cannot 
go over the boundary; but precisely the same thing applies to the 
Ashburton treaty, because the intention was that both channels should 
be kept open. 

Senator Clarke of Arkansas: There is no conflict here with the 
terms of the treaty. The proposition is to improve navigation and not 
interfere with it. The treaty says to keep the channels open. This 
proposition is to improve navigation. 



HEARINGS ON BILL S. 10558 205 

Mr. Littlefield: Yes; but the proposition is to improve it in 
accordance with the judgment of one of the contracting parties without 
reference to the judgment of the other. There is where we got confused 
on that. 

Senator Clarke of Arkansas: That would all go to the question 
of the manner in which it was done. 

Mr. Littlefield: Yes; and I do not have the slightest question, 
as a legal proposition, that if this legislation passes as it is presented 
here to the Committee they get the power to create these works south 
of the boundary line, notwithstandiag the Ashburton treaty and without 
the aid or consent or approval of the Dominion of Canada. Now, why 
not put that into the Bill? Why have any doubt about it, if your 
honours please? This is a great body. This is a great question. 

Senator Clarke of Arkansas: I think the water in the Inter- 
national channel, or a stream south of the International boundary, is 
the common property of both, and New York has presumed to exercise 
her right over her part by selling it. The water has a value outside of its 
use for navigation, and I think New York has assumed to deal with it 
on this side of the boundary line, and it may be that Canada will want to 
deal with it in the same manner on the other side of the boundary, and 
I do not understand that in granting this permission to improve navi- 
gation, even if it results in diverting it from the place where it is now, 
it is a violation of the treaty. 

Mr. Littlefield: Does the Senator take the ground that the 
southern channel is not within the Ashburton treaty? 

Senator Clarke of Arkansas: It is not a question of the channel, 
if the navigation at that point is kept open for all the purposes to 
which it was legitimately devoted. If it was at that point confined to 
one channel it would be better than having two or three. 

Mr. Littlefield : If the Senator will excuse me — 

Senator Clarke of Arkansas: I understand the channel to mean 
one channel and not a dozen channels.. That is the language and the 
meaning of it. The channel means where it is mostly used for navi- 
gation. 

Mr. Littlefield: But the treaty does not read that way. You 
have the same view I had of it when I was discussing it before the Com- 
mittee the other morning. The treaty reads : 

It is further agreed that the channels in the river St. Lawrence, 
on both sides of the Long Sault islands — 

shall be kept open. 

Now, mark that. It says on both sides of the Long Sault islands, 
and there are just two sides of the Long Sault, and there are two streams, 
running one on one side and one on the other. 



206 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

• Senator Clarke of Arkansas: Both of these islands are on 
American territory and subject to American legislation. Nobody can 
raise that objection except the American citizens. 

Mr. Littlbfield: My point is this, that in the Ashburton treaty 
the United States saw fit to agree that those two channels — 

Senator Clarke of Arkansas : These things are provided for in a 
contract for the benefit of the American people, and they can waive 
it and call this thing off for the benefit of the American people. Canada 
has nothing to do with that channel on the south side, so long as the 
International channel is kept open so that their commerce can pass. 

Mr. Littlefield: Was it not competent for Lord Ashburton on 
one part, and — who was the distinguished gentleman who represented us? 

Senator Burton : Daniel Webster, was it not 7 

Senator Smith of Michigan: Daniel Webster. 

Mr. Littlefield: Yes, Daniel Webster; was it not competent 
for them to enter into that treaty? Now, I am very glad to have the 
Senator call my attention to this. 

Senator Burton: Your time has expired, Mr. Littlefield. 

Senator Clarke of Arkansas: Give him five miautes on account 
of my interruptions. ' 

Mr. Littlefield : I have not begun to cover the propositions in- 
volved here. 

Senator Burton: I think we understand this. Your time has 
expired. 

Senator Smith of Michigan: There is one question I want to 
inquire about. The question of whether or not this Act should take 
cognizance of the treaty and of the right of Canada to participate in 
its determination, raises a very important question. If we do not 
mention Canada in the Act, and the matter is passed up to the Inter- 
national tribunal and they may finally agree that these works may be 
constructed with perfect propriety and safety, it seems to me that if the 
object sought to be attained is one of real value and merit, you would be 
more apt to accomplish something and get somewhere with an Act that 
did not mention Canada's rights, although regarding them and respecting 
them whenever they see fit to raise them, than you would otherwise. 
I simply think that it operates as a buffer in this Act, if we want to get 
anywhere. 

Mr. Littlefield: Now, does the Senator feel that it would be 
proper, in the teeth of the Ashburton treaty, for the American Con- 
gress to pass legislation that would leave it open and make it possible 
for a private corporation to erect these works in violation of the con- 
tract entered into at that time? 



HEARINGS ON BILL S. 10558 207 

Senator Smith of Michigan : I would not think so were it not for 
the last International Waterway treaty. I think so far as that attempts 
to regulate the impounding of the waters, it does make some difference. 

Mr. Littlxfibld : The Senator wants to bear in mind that up to 
this date the commissioners have divided equally on some of these im- 
portant questions. They may divide on this. They want this so that 
in case the Commission do not agree, then development can go on in- 
dependently of the consent of Canada. I think I have covered that. 

Senator Smith of Michigan: If they do not agree, will the matter 
remain in statu quo or will they go on south of the island ? 

Me. Little meld : How is that? 

Senator Smith of Michigan: If the International Commission 
fails to agree, will this work go on south of the island? 

Mr. Littlefield: Certainly. 

Senator Smith of Michigan: Or will it remain in statu quo? 

Mr. Littlefield: They can go on if they want to. That is what 
their Bill provides, that they can go on without any reference whatever 
to Canada. That is the objection I make to it. If it is not proper for 
them to proceed except with the consent of the Dominion of Canada, 
the whole Gordian knot can be solved in a moment by simply putting 
that provision in the Act. I submit we are more than 21 years old, 
all of us. This is the Senate of the United States. This is a very digni- 
fied body of a very high character. The Senate of the United States 
does not want to go through legislation that is at any rate uncertain in its 
character. If there are great rights here to be conserved, and we know 
what will conserve them, what objection can there be to inserting in the 
Act language that we know will accomplish the result. My friend says 
they must get the consent of Canada. Put that language in the Act 
requiring them to get the consent of Canada. A few words will ac- 
complish it. The language suggested by Gen. Ernst takes care of the 
whole question. 

Senator Burton: Your time has expired. 

Mr. Littlefield : I wanted to be heard on the matter of the dan- 
gers from ice. 

Senator Burton: Have you not discussed that before the sub- 
committee at a previous hearing? 

Mr. Littlefield : I would like now to put in a brief. 

Senator Burton: Very well; it will be carefully considered. 

ARGUMENT OF HON. GEORGE R. MALBY, A REPRESENTA- 
TIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Mr. Malby: Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the Committee, I 
myself will take only a few minutes of your time, because I want you to 
listen afterwards to one or two others. 



208 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

The channel of the St. Lawrence river at this point is not navi- 
gable, except that a boat does undertake to go down these rapids, 
and it is the most tender piece of navigation in the world which can 
be said to be navigation at all. 

Senator Clarke of Arkansas: Where does the main traffic go? 

Mr. Malby: The main traffic goes down the canal. It all goes 
down the canal except this one boat, which is a passenger boat. 

Senator Clarke of Arkansas: That is an excursion boat? 

Mr. Malby: Yes. 

Senator Clarke of Arkansas: That goes down this channel? 

Mr. Malby : Yes. They have undertaken to do it, and they do it, 
with great danger and some accidents. The South Sault here is at 
the present time not navigable, except that a raft or two have gone 
down there, small rafts. I presume that the reason the provision was put 
in the Ashburton treaty that the channels on both sides of the Long 
Sault islands and south of Barnhart island should be kept open was 
because all that water is in the United States. 

Senator Smith of Michigan : They did not know where the channel 
would be? 

Mr. Malby : They did not know where the channel would be. But, 
as a matter of fact, Barnhart island and Long Sault island it was 
known were the property of the United States, and those two places 
were specifically mentioned in the Ashburton treaty. And why? 
Because all the channel was in the United States, and it gave the two 
contracting parties an equal right to use it. Now, if anybody can 
stretch their imagination far enough so as to construe that treaty 
contracted at that time to have meant that neither Great Britain nor 
the United States should ever improve that navigation by any system, 
then it seems to me as though the distinguished representative of the 
United States, Hon. Daniel Webster, must have performed a duty ia 
regard to that matter which he never in his life performed with respect 
to any other matter. That is all I have to say about that. 

Just why my friend Mr. Littlefield makes an appeal so strongly 
in favour of the Dominion of Canada I am quite at a loss to understand, 
except he thinks perhaps that it is better to discuss that subject than 
any other. What is the objection, if the Committee please, if we find 
any water-power wholly in the United States, to developing it if we can? 
What can be the real objection? 

Senator Smith of Michigan : The only possible objection would be 
that it would tend to impair or obstruct a waterway that we have 
agreed to keep open. 

Mr. Malby: There is no navigation down there. 

Senator Clarke of Arkansas: That does not obstruct it, but 
makes it better. 



HEARINGS ON BILL S. 10558 209 

Mh. Littlefield: There are 60,000 people who go down that 
channel every year. 

Mr. Malby: Yes, there are people who go down there in that 
excursion steamer; but there is a plan proposed on the part of this 
Company involving the expenditure of several million dollars, by which 
there will be a single lock there. 

Senatok Clarke of Arkansas: Is it to be free? 

Mr. Malby: Yes; it is to be maintaiaed by this Company free. 
These comers of the river will have to be cut off. The plan put before 
the Secretary of War gives one single lock down through the South 
Sault here, 30 to 40 feet deep, and if that is not an improvement of 
navigation, I do not know what is. Now, if they can do that, why 
should they not do it? I say they probably would do it, for this reason. 
The water-power which would be developed here by throwing a dam 
across here [indicating on map] and not throwing it across there 
[indicating], would probably be so expensive that the Company would 
not possibly undertake it. They might or might not. I presume under 
this Bill they would have the right, if they thought it financially correct, 
to go across that part because it is ia the United States. But what is 
the objection to it? It improves navigation and costs an immense sum 
of money. Who would object? This dam was put here [indicating on 
map] for the purpose of forcing water down through the mouth there 
which will create a channel down through here 30 or 40 feet deep. 

Senator Clarke of Arkansas: Is the Cornwall canal a toll or a 
free canal? 

Mr. Malby: It is a free canal. All Canadian canals are free. 
And you will see, by making this waterway entirely free it will cut 
off all of this, going right straight down. The Canadian Government 
undoubtedly requires another lock here [radicating]. Canada was 
omitted from this Bill by the Committee without any suggestion from us. 

Senator Burton: Now, you concede that the consent of the 
Dominion of Canada must be obtained before, as you say, any works 
are constructed. What is the objection to a provision such as that 
suggested by Gen. Ernst? 

Mr. Malby: There is only one objection to it, Mr. Chairman. 
When I concede that, it is owing to the fact that it appears to be in 
the Ashburton treaty, if that amounts to anything; that the South 
Sault is included in that. Now, whether that is so or not, attorneys 
seem to differ. The opinion, outside of my own, is that the Congress 
may authorize the construction of this dam without the consent of the 
Canadian Government. 

Senator Burton : If you can do that, ^s it contemplated, without 
the consent of the Canadian Government, to put in that dam at the 
South Sault? 

14 



210 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

Mr. Malby: I think it is, if it can be regarded as a practicable 
engineering proposition. 

Senator Burton: Then, to that extent, you should modify your 
statement that the consent of Canada is indispensable. 

Mb. Malby: I do not see how the Company could proceed without 
proceeding with the entire scheme, and if they do — 

Senator Burton: You think you can put that in there without 
the consent of anybody? 

Mr. Malby: It is the only thing they can do. 

Senator Smith of Michigan: Do the engineers say that the con- 
struction of that dam will affect the headwaters in there? 

Mr. Malby: What headwaters? 

Senator Smith of Michigan: The headwaters up above. 

Mr. Malby: A little, but not enough to hurt anything. 

STATEMENT OF ARTHUR P. DAVIS 

Mr. Davis : I should like to say we did take advice with regard to 
the Ashburton treaty and, with all respect to Mr. Littlefield, I think 
he does not read the English language correctly. The Ashburton treaty 
says that these channels must be equally free and open, not that they 
must be open; as free and open to one country as to the other. We 
submitted that question to the Attorney General of the United States, 
and that is his opinion. I will simply call your attention to the fact 
that it has been construed in that manner, because Canada did propose 
to do, north of the Long Sault island, precisely what we propose to do 
south of Long Sault island, although that north channel is equally free 
to the United States as to Canada. Canada went to work and built 
this canal system, with locks, precisely the same as we could do down 
here. 

Senator Burton: Do you mean by that that they erected any 
obstruction in the channel, either north or south of Barnhart island? 

Mr. Davis: Certainly; they constructed this dyke out here 
[indicating on map]. 

Senator Burton: But where did they construct anything that 
would interfere with vessels going up and down the channel ? 

Mr. Davis : They did not construct anything that would interfere 
with vessels going up and down the channel, because vessels cannot 
go up and down, any more than they can in the south channel. They 
improved navigation and permitted navigation to be equally free to us 
as to their own vessels. Now we propose to give Canada equally free 
navigation with our own vessels. 

Senator Clarke of Arkansas: You do not regard a canal as an 
obstruction? I think it is as open with a canal with a lock in it as it 
is without. 



HEARINGS ON BILL S. 10558 211 

Senator Burton : Is there anything further ? Whom else do you 
wish to be heard ? 

Mr. Malbt: I would like to inquire from the gentlemen of the 
Committee whether there is any other question which they would like 
to ask? 

Senator Burton: In the consideration of this proposition other 
questions may arise, but I do not think any suggest themselves to us 
now. 

Mr. Malby: There is one other matter I want to speak of before I 
sit down, and that is as to the term of the lease here, if you may call 
it such. It is not a lease. The time here is 99 years. Now, I want to 
submit to this Committee this legal proposition: I respectfully submit 
that the Congress of the United States has no legal authority, constitu- 
tional or otherwise, to fix in the Bill any limit which modifies the 
charter granted by a sovereign State, and in particular one of the 
states which was among the 13 original states. 

Senator Burton : We are doing that, right along. 

Mr. Malby: I do not know but that we are doing it right along, 
Mr. Chairman, but I want to respectfully challenge the authority for 
doing it. The 13 original states existed before the Union. 

Senator Clarke of Arkansas: We are not going to decide that 
question to-day. That is a great big question. 

Mr. Malby: Where a state has granted an unlimited charter to do 
a certain thing, Congress has not the right to modify that charter. 
Of course, the question of time would be eliminated. 

Senator Clarke of Arkansas: The Supreme Court of the United 
States in a recent case has decided that no obstruction can be placed 
in a river without the consent of the State, this being the rule prescribed 
in a provision of the Rivers and Harbours act of 1889. 

Mr. Malby: Let me call your attention to this: This is a propo- 
sition, in any event, which was made. Of course, this will cost ten or 
fifteen million dollars to develop it. 

Senator Clarke of Arkansas : If you could sell that 500,000 horse- 
power for $25 per horse-power, it seems to me your income ought to be 
pretty good on that $10,000,000. 

Mr. Malby: There is nothing there but farming country, Senator. 

Senator Clarke of Arkansas: Oh, you can transmit electricity 
200 miles. 

Senator Smith of Michigan: You can transmit it 400 or 500 
miles. 

Senator Clarke of Arkansas: You can transmit it 200 miles, 
any^yay. 

Mr. Malby: There is no market for it there. The record shows 
that. There are only a few little country towns around there. 



212 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

Senator Smith of Michigan : In Utah they transmit electricity 400 
miles. 

Senator Burton: I do not think that is quite pertinent to this 
discussion. 

Mr. Malby: One other thing. Look at section 5. It provides, 
"that should the works hereby authorized be or become at any time, 
in the opinion of the Secretary of War and the Chief of Engineers, 
inadequate," and so forth, they may change it. In other words, the 
authority to lay down plans and specifications is given to the Secretary 
of War and the Chief of Engineers. You do not want them and the 
Commission to have concurrent jurisdiction, do you? That would not 
be possible. You have got to have the authority, not in the Interna- 
tional Waterways Commission, as much as we might think of that 
Commission — but for the purposes of construction you want the Secre- 
tary of War and the Chief of Engineers of the United States. 

Now, of what use is a limitation of 99 years when you come to 
section 7? Section 7 reads : 

That the right to alter, amend, or repeal this Act is hereby 
expressly reserved, and the United States shaU incur no liability 
because of the alteration, amendment, or repeal thereof. 

Mr. Littlefield : I think, Mr. Chairman, that I ought perhaps to 
have about five minutes on the dangers resulting from jams of ice. 
Senator Burton : I think you had better present that in a brief. 
Mr. Malby: We shall want to reply, of course. 
Me. Littlefield : I have not been heard a moment on this. 
Senator Burton : We will see about that. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR GEORGE T. OLIVER OF 
PENNSYLVANIA 

Senator Oliver: I want to say one word, Mr. Chairman, to the 
Committee in regard to the extreme importance of action upon this 
proposition. There is no question before the American people to-day 
so urgent and insistent as that of the conservation of fuel, whether that 
fuel comes in the shape of coal underlying our hills or in the shape of 
water running down our streams. If this project is going to be devel- 
oped to its fullest extent, developing 500,000 horse-power, it simply 
means the saving for other purposes and for use in other places where 
water-power is not available of 500 acres of coal every year. In other 
words, we are to-day in this country burning up 500 acres of coal every 
year which might be saved for other purposes and for future genera- 
tions if this project were put into operation. That is all I have to say, 
and I urge that as impressing upon the Committee the importance of 



HEARINGS ON BILL S. 10558 213 

getting this thing to work as soon as possible and eliminating non- 
essential propositions from its consideration. 

Senator Glabke of Arkansas: I think you have made a good 
speech. 

Senator Burton: Mr. Littlefield, the Committee feels that there 
should be an equality in the assignment of time to both sides. You have 
taken more time now than the advocates of the Bill. 

Senator Clarke of Arkansas: He only asked five minutes. Let 
us compromise with him. 

Senator Burton : If that leads to an answer by the other side — 

Mr. Malbt: If it leads to ice it will. 

Mr. Littlefield: I do not want to submit in a brief something 
that will raise a little different phase of the question without notifying 
my friends on the other side. I want to state this in five minutes, so that 
they may have the benefit of that. 

Senator Burton : Very well, go ahead. 

Mr. Littlefield : Your honours have the photographs here show- 
ing conditions in regard to ice. I am going to read a telegram from Sir 
James P. Whitney, the premier of Ontario, which reads: 

Toronto, Ontario, February 7, 1911. 
J. Wesley Allison, 

Willard Hold, Washington, B.C.: 
My experience and personal knowledge of the locality convince 
me that the proposed works of the Long Sault Development Co. 
in the St. Lawrence river must cause ice jams, the consequence of 
which will certainly be heavy damages to property, and in all 
probability loss of life on the Ontario side of the river. I do not 
believe that any man familiar with the locality for the last 30 years 
will doubt my statement. 

J. P. WHITNEY 
Premier of Province of Ontario 

Now, I just want to say briefly this : Section 6 of the Bill pending 
before the Committee concedes that there is danger from ice jams as 
the result of this construction, and it concedes further that the parties 
constructing the works should pay the damages caused thereby. It 
provides for the filing of a bond of $500,000. I want to state this, 
that in my judgment the section in not adequate for that purpose. If 
it is once conceded that these dangers are likely to occur, and these 
injuries are likely to be done, and that the Company is properly respon- 
sible therefor, then I simply say that it is incumbent upon the Congress 
to put such a provision in that Bill as will take care of all the damages 
and see that they are properly paid; and now I am going to suggest this 
section in lieu of the one you have. I will say that their Bill is subject 
to the provisions of the waterways act. That waterways act provides 
that people shall be responsible for all overflow caused. The damage re- 



214 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

suiting from ice jams in the winter season would hardly be within the 
scope of the overflow, and that confines it to private property. The 
Government of Canada has large investments along on the Canadian side. 
There should be a provision in the Bill in regard to this. They concede 
there is danger and that they ought to pay for injuries caused. I sug- 
gest the following language: 

Sec. 6. The authority conferred by this Act is conferred upon 
the express condition that the Long Sault Development Company, 
its successors and assigns, shall assume, become liable for, and pay 
all damages that may be sustained by any person, firm, corporation, 
or Government upon both sides of the river, by reason of any over- 
flow, ice jams, or other causes produced by the erection, mainten- 
ance, or operation of said dam or dams, and a right of action in 
favour of such person, firm, corporation, or Government so sustain- 
ing damages is hereby given against said Long Sault Development 
Company and its successors and assigns, and all damages thus 
sustained are hereby made a first lien upon all the property of said 
Company, its successors and assigns. 

That is simply for the purpose of adequately protecting anybody 
who may be injured. Our judgment is that injuries vast in their cha- 
racter and immense in their size will be sustained by both persons and 
property. They concede that they ought to pay if they do the damage. 
Therefore we say there should be a provision in the Bill amply covering 
it, so that whoever may be injured by these things will have an ade- 
quate remedy, without any question, under the statute. I will submit 
a brief, if your honours please, upon that. I am very much obliged to 
the Committee for their kindness in relation to this matter. 

Mr. Malbt: I only want to say that that provision was put into 
the Bill by the Rivers and Harbours Committee against our consent 
and against our earnest protest and against what we regard as the 
highest authorities. It is there, and we have not said anything about it. 
It seems to me as though that was a matter that Congress did not have 
anything to do with. Under the laws of the state of New York if any- 
body puts an obstruction in a stream by way of a dam they are liable. 
You need not put anything in the Bill to create a liability; they are 
liable. I take it that is the law throughout the land. If they put a 
dam in here which has a tendency to flood this land and destroy property, 
they are responsible for it. Thpy cannot get out of it. It does not seem 
to me it is necessary to have Congress do something that they have not 
a right to do. 

Mr. Littlefield : I will submit under my brief, if I receive them 
in time, two affidavits in regard to ice conditions in the St. Lawrence 
river. 

Mr. Malbt: Of course we can show that, so far as ice conditions are 
concerned, they would be vastly improved. 

(At 12.15 o'clock p.m. the sub-committee adjourned.) 



HEARINGS ON BILL S. 10558 215 

MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO THE BILL 

Submitted by G. E. Littlefield 

As indicating the character of the opposition to the legislation, 
we submit an extract from a statement of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, in the 
House of Commons of the Dominion Parliament, February 2, 1911, as 
follows : 

When we heard of this Bill being introduced at Washington 
we put ourselves into communication with the British ambassador 
to remonstrate; and correspondence is going on now upon the 
subject. * * * 

Mr. Reid (Grenville) : Did I understand the prime minister 
to say that he had already protested to British Ambassador Bryce 
against the passage of this Bill in Washington? 

Sir Wilfrid Laurier: We made representations; yes. 

Also the following: 

[First]. 

Hon. Chas. E. Littlefield, 

New Willard Hotel, Washington, D.C. 
^We, the undersigned, acting for our respective organizations, 
ask that you enter our respectful protest before the Committee on 
Commerce of the United States Senate against the passage of the 
pending Bill in the interest of the Long Sault Development Co. 

JAS. J. GUERIN 

Mayor of Montreal 

ROBT. W. REFORD 

First Vice-President Board of Trade 

FRED C. LARIVIERE 

La Chambre de Commerce 

L. E. GEOFFRION 
Acting President Harbour Commissioners 

J. H. SHERRARD 

Vice-Chairman Canadian Manufacturers' Association 

H. LAPORTE 

President Montreal Citizens' Association 

ANDREW A. ALLAN 
President the Shipping Federation of Canada 

L. L. HENDERSON 

Montreal Transportation Co. 

GEORGE CAVERHILL 
Richelieu & Ontario Navigation Co. 



216 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

[Second] 
Hon. Chas. E. Littlefield, 

New Willard Hotel, Washington, D.C. 
Please present our respectful protest to the Senate Committee 
on Commerce against the pending legislation of the Long Sault 
Development Co. We have been navigating the St. Lawrence river 
for 64 years, using the channels which these works will obstruct. 
We have a large and growing traffic on this route, and the obstruction 
of the Long Sault rapids will not only deprive us of one of the 
greatest attractions of our route, but owing to delay, break the 
continuity of our service, forcing us to miss our^ connections, 
seriously jeopardizing our business, and materially affect our earn- 
ings. We further protest that the proposed works constitute a 
direct infringement of article 7, Ashburton treaty. 

RICHELIEU & ONTARIO NAVIGATION GO. 

G. J. Smith, General Manager 

[Third] 

Sir: I beg to say that the council of this board notes with 
surprise the statement made before the Rivers and Harbours Com- 
mittee in the House of Representatives on H.R. 14531 by Mr. 
Leighton McCarthy, of Torc^nto, representing the Long Sault De- 
velopment Co., or the Aluminum Co. of America, inferring that this 
board had withdrawn its opposition to the scheme for damming 
the Long Sault rapids, which statement was evidently made with 
a desire to give the impression that the non-appearance of the 
Montreal Board of Trade before that Committee was on account of 
their objections having been satisfied. 

I am, therefore, directed by the council to say that the Montreal 
Board of Trade holds exactly the same opinion as it has done all 
along in regard to this matter; the council regrets that it could not 
be present in person to lay before the said Committee of the House 
of Representatives its objections to the Bill, but after weighing the 
matter fully it decided that as a public Canadian body it would not 
be right for them to appear before that Committee without a formal 
invitation, and that it was a matter to be arranged between the 
United States Government and the Canadian Government. More- 
over, it was understood that the Dominion Government had made 
due representations regarding this matter through the British Em- 
bassy. You are, however, at full liberty to state through your 
counsel the stand that the Montreal Board of Trade takes in this 
matter, which is as follows: 

1. Navigation interests must be paramount. 

2. That in event of any works being constructed in an Inter- 
national channel, that these works should be constructed, owned,' 
and controlled for all time by the respective Governments. 

3. That in the event of the development of water-powers on 
an International waterway there shall be a proper division of the 
power, and that the construction of the works shall be such that 
each country shall be able to develop the full quota of power to 
which it is entitled in its own territory. 



HEARINGS ON BILL S. 10558 2^7 

4. That in the event of constructing new canals and locks that 
same shall be built in Canadian territory where the channel now is, 
and not on the New York State side. 

I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

GEO. HADRILL 

Secretary 
J. Wesley Allison, Esq. 

[Fourth] 

J. Wesley Allison, Esq., 

New Willard Hotel, Washington, D.C. 
Dear Sir: I beg to send you herewith copy of resolution with 
regard to the proposed damming of the St. Lawrence river at or 
near the Long Sault rapids, passed by the Montreal executive com- 
mittee of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association at a meeting on 
February 24, 1910. I would ask you to place this on record: 

" Resolved, That as the St. Lawrence river is the great Inter- 
national waterway between Canada and the United States at the 
point where the Long Sault Development Co. propose to buUd a 
dam, the Montreal executive committee of the Canadian Manu- 
facturers' Association places itself on record as being strongly 
opposed to any part of this river being allowed to pass into the 
hands of a private corporation." 

Yours, faithfully, 

H. T. MELDRUM 

Montreal, Secretary 

[Fifth] 

Moved by Mr. Hilliard, seconded by Mr. Nash: 

That this council desires to reaffirm its unalterable opposition 
to any proposition to dam the St. Lawrence river, and especially 
the proposition now before the Congress of the United States of 
America, to dam the said river at Long Sault rapids, and we do 
hereby authorize J. Wesley Allison to protest against any such 
scheme. 

Carried. 

I, Fred R. Chalmers, clerk of the municipality of the village 
of Morrisburg, hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and 
correct copy of resolution passed by the council of the above 
corporation at a regular meeting held January 17, 1911. 

Given under my hand and the seal of said corporation this 18th 
day of January, A.D. 1911. 

F. R. CHALMERS 

[Sixth] 

In connection with the discussion of the Long Sault and other 
water-power schemes, at the last meeting of the Dominion Marine 
Association, held in Montreal, January 20, 1911, the following 
resolution was passed: 



218 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

"Resolved, That we recommend that all improvements or 
changes in navigable waters be made by the Government and solely 
with a view to the improvement of navigation, and that only such 
water-powers be developed as can be done without injury to navi- 
gation, and that before any further concessions are granted that a 
comprehensive scheme be developed by the Government." 

FRANCIS KING 
Secretary Dominion Marine Association 

[Seventh] 

Re St. Lawrence Powee Scheme 

J. Wesley Allison, Esq., 

New Willard Hold, Washington, B.C. 
Dear Sir: The board of control has taken up the question of 
a BiU now before Congress, allowing the damming of the Long Sault 
channel, and can not put too strongly the objection felt by this 
community to the passing of the BiU. As we understand it, certain 
water-routes will be changed, if not entirely cut off, and navigation 
even in other channels very seriously interfered with. 

The board of trade of this city, as well as boards of trade of 
Montreal and several other places of importance in the Dominion of 
Canada, strongly protest against any privilege being given for a 
work of this character. If a detailed statement of our objections 
would be of any service to the Committee having charge of the Bill, 
we should be very glad to have the opportunity of putting the same 
before the Committee. 

Yours, very truly, 

G. R. GEARY, K.G. 
Mayor, City of Toronto, Canada 

Senate Bill 10558 is clearly intended to authorize the construction 
of dams in the St. Lawrence river by the Long Sault Development Co., 
south of the boundary line, without the consent of Canada. , 

It is true that Congressman Malby in his opening statement to the 
sub-committee said, in answer to a question by the chairman, as 
follows : 

The Chairman : You concede that for the construction of these 

works the consent of the Canadian Government is necessary? 

Mr. Malby: Absolutely essential, sir. There wiU be no work 

done in the United States of America unless Canada consents. 

This is one job, Mr. Chairman, or it is nothing. 

And at the end of the hearing, in answer to another question from 
Chairman Burton, of the sub-committee, he admitted that the Bill 
did authorize the construction of the work without the consent of 
Canada, as appears by the following: 

The Chairman: If you can do that, is it contemplated, with- 
out the consent of the Canadian Government, to put in that dam, 

at the South Sault? 



HEARINGS ON BILL S. 10558 219 

Mr. Malby: I think it is, if it can be regarded as a practicable 

engineering proposition. 

While this makes it unnecessary to elaborate that proposition it is 
important, in order that the significance, that phase of the question 
may be fully understood, to briefly state the situation in the record. 
Article VII of the Ashburton treaty reads as follows : 

It is further agreed that the channels in the river St. Lawrence 
on both sides of the Long Sault islands and of Barnhart island; the 
channels in the river Detroit, on both sides of the island Bois Blanc, 
and between that island and both the American and Canadian 
shores; and all the several channels and passages between the 
various islands lying near the junction of the river St. Clair with 
the lake of that name, shaU be equally free and open to the ships 
vessels, and boats of both parties. 

The contention is that when any change is made in the channels 
covered by this treaty a fair and proper construction of its provisions, 
having regard to the subject-matter and the language of the treaty 
requires that Canada should be consulted and its approval obtained. 
In harmony with this position, H. R. 14531, introduced December 14, 

1909, in the House of Representatives, and upon which a five days' 
hearing before the Rivers and Harbours Committee was held, provided 
that the work should be "completed within 15 years from the date of 
the passage of this Act, or from the date of the consent of the proper 
authorities of the United States of America and the Dominion of Canada 
to the construction of said works," and further provided that the Act 
should "not be construed as authorizing said Company, its successors 
or assigns, to construct said dams, canals, locks, and other works until 
such consent and approval shall be obtained," clearly recognizing the 
fact of the impropriety of proceeding with works upon the American 
side without first obtaining the consent of Canada. 

This Bill was referred to the International Waterways Commission 
for their opinion and was returned with a report, (Appendix B, Inter- 
national Waterways Commission, Progress Report) dated March 11, 

1910, in which the Canadian section did not join. 

In the report upon the question of joint action between the two 
countries, the American section, O. H. Ernst, Brig. Gen., United States 
Army, retired, George Clinton, and E. E. Haskell, said: 

It is, of course, impracticable for the legislature of the two 

countries to act simultaneously. One must act in advance of the 

other, but if any law which the first may pass shall contain the 

proviso that it shall become operative only after the approval of 

the other, co-operation in legislation will be secured. 
******** 

The Bill referred to us seems to recognize the necessity of co- 
operation between the two Governments, but it does so in a vague 
way and is much less explicit than it should be. A separate section 
should be introduced, worded as follows : 



220 COMMISSION OP CONSERVATION 

"Sec. — . This Act shall not become operative until the 
Government of the Dominion of Canada shall signify to the Secre- 
tary of the State of the United States its consent to the construc- 
tion of such dam and other structures: Provided, That if said 
consent be not given within two years from the date of this Act, 
then this Act shall be null and void." 

The only provision that is contained in S. 10558 that can in any 
way be said to relate to or contemplate joint action upon the part of 
the Dominion of Canada and the United States is section 2, which 
provides : 

Sec. 2. That said Long Sault Development Co., its successors 
and assigns, shall be subject to the provisions of the treaty between 
the United States and Great Britain relative to the boundary waters 
between the United States and Canada, proclaimed by the President 
of the United States on the thirteenth day of May, nineteen hundred 
and ten. ' 

It will be observed that it does not make the operation of the Act 
contingent upon the approval of the Commission, but simply subjects 
the act "to the provision of the treaty." The provision of the treaty 
with reference to the action of the International Waterways Commis- 
sion is found in the last paragraph of article 8 of the treaty, and reads 
as follows: 

The majority of the commissioners shall have the power to 
render a decision. In case the Commission is evenly divided upon 
any question or matter presented to it for decision, separate reports 
shall be made by the commissioners on each side to their own 
Governments. The High Contracting Parties shall thereupon 
endeavour to agree upon the adjustment of the question or matter 
of difference, and if an agreement is reached between them, it shall 
be reduced to writing iu the form of a protocol, and shaU be com- 
municated to the commissioners, who shall take such further pro- 
ceedings as may be necessary to carry out such agreement. 

It will be observed that this provision does not accomplish any 
result unless the majority of the Commission "render a decision." If 
the Commission is evenly divided, they simply report to their respective 
Governments, and in that case the " High Contracting Parties endeavour 
to agree upon an adjustment." 

If, however, they do not agree, no adjustment is reached, and, S® 
far as the action of the Commission is concerned, it stands precisely 
as it did when it was submitted to them, without accomplishing any- 
thing by way of a determiaation on the part of the Commission. The 
significance of these provisions is obvious when attention is called to 
the fact that H. R. 14531 is the Bill that was before the International 
Waterways Commission, and the Canadian section declined to join in 
the report approving it. That Bill contained a specific provision 
requiring the consent of the Canadian Government. S. 10558 contains 
no such provision, and it is, therefore, a moral certainty that the Can- 



HEARINGS ON BILL S. 10558 ; 221 

adian section would decline to approve of its provisions, as it is very- 
much less favourable to Canada than H. R. 14531, upon which they 
have already passed. 

It is, therefore, obvious that S. 10558, if it goes before the Inter- 
national Waterways Commission, will simply result in a divided Com- 
mission and will leave the Bill precisely as it stood before a reference 
to the Commission. The specific provisions of the Act itself will then 
become operative, and they are found in section 1, and as to the point, 
read as follows : 

That the Long Sault Development Co., a corporation organized 
under a law of the state of New York, entitled "An Act to construct, 
maintain, and operate for navigation, water-power, and other 
purposes for a period of ninety-nine years a dam or dams in so 
much of the St. Lawrence river as lies south of the International 
Boundary line between the United States of America and the 
Dominion of Canada, near Long Sault, Barnhart, and Sheek islands, 
either independently or in connection with like works now erected 
or to be erected in o much of said river as lies north of said Inter- 
national Boundary line. 

So that we have not only the admission of Congressman Malby 
that it is proposed to construct the works without the consent of Canada; 
but the specific language of the proposed legislation itself clearly 
demonstrates that purpose. Upon this branch of the Bill the question 
is, — ^wiU this Committee recommend legislation which is distinctly in 
opposition to the careful and deliberate recommendation of the unani- 
mous American section of the International Waterways Commission 
which has been devoting its time for the last six years to an investiga- 
tion of all the questions involved in the navigation of the St. Lawrence 
river? 

This is an International proposition. The interests and rights of 
Canada and its citizens are to be seriously affected. Their section of the 
International Waterways Commission did not feel at liberty to concur 
with the American section upon a Bill that submitted the whole proposi- 
tion for the approval of the Dominion of Canada. Here is a proposition 
distinctly in opposition to the recommendation of the American section. 

Whether or not action upon the part of Congress that is much more 
unfavourable and is entirely inconsistent with the recommendation of 
the American section of the International Waterways Commission, 
would or not tend to promote friendly relations between the United 
States and Canada would hardly seem to require discussion. 

[Second] 

The ice jams caused by the damming of the river would place the 
country above in great jeopardy. 



222 COMfflSSION OF CONSERVATION 

Upon this point we beg leave to refer in the first instance to the 
suggestions contained in the memorandum submitted before the Rivers 
and Harbours Committee on H. R. 14531. Upon the dangers to be 
apprehended from the ice jams, the statement of Mr. Kennedy, an 
experienced engineer, will be found at pages 110 to 113 of the House 
hearings, and the statement of Gapt. James H. Logan, a man of large 
experience upon the river, may be found in the hearings af pages 840 
to 843. In addition to this, the following telegram has just b^en received 
from Sir James P. Whitney, premier of Ontario, Canada : 

J. Wesley Allison, 

Willard Hotel, Washington, D.C.: 
My experience and personal knowledge of the locality convince 
me that the proposed works of the Long Sault Development Co. 
in the St. Lawrence river must cause ice jams, the consequence of 
which will certainly be heavy damages to property and in all 
probability loss of life on the Ontario side of the river. I do not 
believe that any man familiar with the locaUty for the last 30 years 
will doubt my statement. 

J. P. WHITNEY 
Premier of Province of Ontario 

The injury that would be caused to persons and property by the 
ice jams which would inevitably be precipitated by the construction 
of the dams as proposed can hardly be exaggerated. 

The danger from floods if the Government allows these dams to be 
constructed is a very serious one. The backwater caused by obstructing 
the natural flow of the river will greatly lessen the effective heads on 
many of the existing power plants above the Long Sault. Some engineers 
have, it is true, given an opinion that there is no probability of such 
damage being sustained. On the other hand, the opinion of the residents 
along the shore and of the most experienced navigators and observers 
is apparently almost unanimous in holding that the probability of serious 
damage is very strong. With all respect to the engineers who have 
given their opinions, it is submitted that the question is not an engmeer- 
ing problem, and that no data exists for the information of a reliable 
engineering opinion. No engineer can tell where and how ice will be 
forced when in our rigorous climate the flow of a mighty river like the 
St. Lawrence is interfered with. 

It is on record that in past years great damage from floods and ice 
jams has been sustained for many miles upstream and on both sides 
of the river, caused by large areas of ice swinging across some portion 
of the stream. The annual occurrence of ice jams in this 40-mile stretch 
of open water between lake St. Francis (a short distance below the 
Long Sault rapids) and Ogdensburg is only prevented by the swiftness 
of the current, keeping this section of the river open and quickly carry- 
ing away the continuous flow of ice cakes and slush, with which this 



HEARINGS ON BILL S. 10558 223 

part of the St. Lawrence is filled during the winter months. It is true that 
at present all this ice accumulates in lake St. Francis and that even with 
its width of 6 miles it has become an almost yearly event to have the 
lower portion of the city of Cornwall flooded and its power plant forced 
to close down. That the effect of a dam across the outlet of the open 
stretch above the dam of the river is to slacken the current above is 
readDy admitted; but how to prevent the ice in this slowed current 
from bridging, or how to hinder the vast amount of ice from accumulat- 
ing in front of the dam instead of in lake St. Francis as it now does, is a 
problem that has never been solved. The Company propose to maintain 
ice breakers. To anyone who has knowledge of the great difficulties 
encountered by electric companies in northern waters when dealing with 
the anchor ice in the fore-bay screens the proposition is simply ludi- 
crous. To handle in a channel all the anchor and other ice that forms 
with incredible rapidity under certain conditions of weather, is a 
practical impossibility, and shows that they are either grossly ignorant 
of the difficulties, or do not care. All the residents along the shores 
know the effect of a stoppage — ever so slight — in the flow of this 
mighty stream. Under favourable circumstances, and in the early 
part of the season, thode memorable jams of 1879, 1887, and 1905, 
when the water raised 12 feet above the normal at Morrisburg, a distance 
of 10 miles above Farran Point, the location of the ice bridge, will be 
surpassed, but to what extent no human being is able to foretell. 

All the scientific world knows of the investigations and means 
employed to break open the jams in the Niagara river, and everyone 
has heard of the strenuous but unsuccessful efforts put forth by the 
Canadian Government to keep free the lower St. Lawrence of its ice 
and maintain an open channel. The damage incurred by the jamming 
of the channel below the lower rapids (Coteau, Cascades, and Lachine) 
and that often taking place in Montreal harbour, gives a faint idea 
of the responsibility entailed in arresting the flow of the rapids at the 
Long Sault. The possible temporary total stoppage of the flow of the 
river as a consequence of the works contemplated is a contingency 
which can not be said to be impossible or remote. From past experi- 
ences we believe that the force of the flood incurred by the recent over- 
flowing of the river Seine in France would be nothing as compared to 
the power of the much greater volume of water that would overrun the 
shores of the St. Lawrence if any obstruction in this river were allowed. 

The significance of these facts is recognized by S. 10558, section 6, 
which reads as follows : 

Sec. 6. That the Long Sault Development Company shall 
execute a bond obligatory on itself, its successors and assigns, with 
good and solvent sureties in the sum of five hundred thousand 
dollars, payable to the United States, for the use and benefit of the 



224 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

riparian and other landowners in and along the St. Lawrence river 
conditioned to pay all damages that may accrue to them, or any of 
them, by reason of overflow, ice jams, and other causes produced 
by the erection or maintenance of said dam or dams, and the work 
of construction shall not commence until said bond is executed and 
approved by the Secretary of War and deposited in the War De- 
partment. 

S. 10558, while it is identical with the Bill reported by the Rivers 
and Harbours Committee of the House, appears before the Senate Com- 
mittee as an original proposition, and it is to be taken, as we under- 
stand it, as it stands, without any qualification or limitation. Section 
6 proceeds upon two hypotheses; first, that the damage apprehended 
from ice jams caused by the erection of the dams is a real one, and, 
second, that it is a damage that the Long Sault Development Go. 
should be held legally responsible for. This being the case, there can 
be no question but that all parties damaged or injured by the acts of 
the Long Sault Development Co. should be paid such damages as they 
sustain thereby. While the damages to be apprehended for its jams 
are so great as to prohibit the erection of any dams, if they are to be 
authorized, adequate protection against injury should be provided by 
the Act. 

Section 6, in our judgment, is not adequate for that purpose. 
The limit of $500,000 in the bond suggests the inference that that 
-is the extent of the damage to be paid by the Company, whereas the 
Company should pay all damages caused by its acts. The section 
confines the liability to "the use and benefit of the riparian and other 
land owners," which obviously is much too narrow to cover all persons 
who might sustain damage, because ice jams such as have already 
occurred have not only injured riparian and land owners, but individuals 
and personal property. Jams such as are not only possible but probable 
are likely to not only injure persons and property, but to destroy life 
as well. 

While S. 10558 is made subject to the provisions of the dam Act 
approved June 23, 1910, that Act, with reference to damage inflicted, 
is not sufficiently broad to cover the situation here. That Act provides, 
in section 3, "that the persons constructiag, maintaining or operating 
any dam," shall be liable for any damage that may be inflicted thereby 
upon private property either by overflow or otherwise. "Here the 
Dominion and Provincial Governments are the owners of large amounts 
of property upon the Canadian side, as well as important and very 
extensive public works, such as canals, upon which they have spent 
millions of dollars, all of which are liable to serious injury by ice jams." 

The language of the Act ought to be so definite and certain that 
it would cover all persons injured and eliminate all doubt as to the 



HEARINGS ON BILL S. 10558 226 

liability of the Company. We, therefore, suggest in the place of section 
6, the following section as only adequate to accomplish these purposes : 

Sec. 6. The authority conferred by this Act is conferred upon 
the express condition that the Long Sault Development Company, 
its successors and assigns, shall assume, become liable for, and pay 
all damages that may be sustained by any person, firm, corporation, 
or government upon both sides of the river, by reason of any over- 
flow, ice jams, or other causes produced by the erection, mainten- 
ance, or operation of said dam or dams, and a right of action in 
favour of such person, firm, corporation, or government so sus- 
taining damages is hereby given against said Long Sault Develop- 
ment Company and its successors and assigns, and all damages 
thus sustained are hereby made a first lien upon all the property 
of said Company, its successors and assigns. 

The Long Sault Development Company, its successors and 
assigns, shall not commence the work of construction herein 
authorized until it executes as additional security a bond obligatory 
upon itself, its successors and assigns, with good and solvent 
securities in the sum of five hundred thousand dollars, payable to 
the United States, to be approved by the Secretary of War and 
deposited in the War Department for the use and benefit of all 
persons, firms, corporations, or governments that may sustain 
damage as aforesaid. 

The latter part of section 6 is practically a paraphrase of section 6 
of the Bill and requires the security to be filed provided for by said 
section. In addition to this, we think the following section should 
be added to the Bill : 

Sec. 7. Upon the failure of the Long Sault Development 
Company, its successors and assigns, to comply with any of the 
provisions of this Act, to pay the expenses provided for in section 5 
and damages as provided for in section 6, this Act shall be void, 
and the rights hereby conferred shall cease and be determined, and 
in such case said Long Sault Development Company, its successors 
and assigns, shall have no right to recover compensation from the 
United States for anything that it may have done. 

This section, it will be observed, is precisely in line with the recom- 
mendation of the American section of the International Waterways 
Commission, as will be seen upon page 13 of the International Water- 
ways Commission, Sixth Progress Report. 

The American section recommends the following proviso to be 
added to H. R. 14531, which was submitted to them: 

Provided, That in case the said Company shall at the time 
violate any of the provisions of this Act, or fail to comply with the 
directions of the Secretary of War or_ the Chief of Engineers, or 
with any conditions or regulations which may be imposed by the 
International Waterways Commission, with the approval of the 
Secretary of War, or with any conditions or regulations which may 

16 



226 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

be made pursuant to any agreement between the United States and 
Great Britain on behalf of the Dominion of Canada, the President 
of the United States may declare the said right of user forfeited and 
so much of said dam or dams and their approaches and of said 
bridges as lie south of the boundary shall thereupon become the 
property of the United States, free and clear of said right of user. 

With reference to all the other public considerations involved in 
the pending legislation we beg leave to refer to the memorandum 
filed before the Rivers and Harbours Committee. 




APPENDIX XXI 



BILL H. R. 22950* 

Presented in the United States House op Representatives, 
62nd Congress, Second Session April 6, 1912, by Mr. G. R. 
Malby. a Bill to Provide for the Improvement of Naviga- 
tion IN THE St. Lawrence River, and for the Construction of 
Dams, Locks, Canals, and other Appurtenant Structures 

THEREIN at AND NEAR LONG SaULT, BaRNHART, AND ShEEK 

Islands 

BE it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Long 
Sault Development Company, a corporation organized under a law of the 
state of New York, entitled "An Act to incorporate the Long Sault 
Development Company, and to authorize said company to construct and 
maintain dams, canals, power-houses, and locks at or near Long Sault 
island for the purpose of improving the navigation of the Saint Lawrence 
river and developing power from the waters thereof, and to construct 
and maintain a bridge, and carry on the manufacture of commodities," 
which became effective May twenty-third, nineteen hundred and seven, 
its successors and assigns, be, and they hereby are, authorized to con- 
struct, maintain, and operate for navigation, water-power, and other 
purposes dam or dams in so much of the Saint Lawrence river as lies 
south of the International Boundary line between the United States of 
America and the Dominion of Canada, near Long Sault, Barnhart,and 
Sheek islands, either independently or in connection with like works now 
erected or to be erected in so much of said river as lies north of said In- 
ternational Boundary line, with a bridge or bridges and approaches 
thereto, and a lock or locks, a canal or canals, and other structures ap- 
purtenant thereto: Provided, That such dam or dams, lock or locks, 
canal or canals, and other structures appurtenant thereto, except as 
herein otherwise provided, shall be constructed, maintained, operated, 
modified, or removed in all respects subject to and in accordance with 
the provisions of the Act entitled "An Act to amend an Act entitled 'An 
Act to regulate the construction of dams across navigable waters,' 
approved June twenty-third, nineteen hundred and ten " ; Provided fur- 



*This Bill was referred to the Rivers and Harbours Committee. It was not 
reported from the Committee before March 4, 1913, and therefore has expired 
automatically. 



228 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

ther, That such bridge or bridges and approaches thereto, except as here- 
in otherwise provided, shall be constructed, maintained, operated, mod- 
ified, or removed in all respects subject to and in accordance with the 
provisions of the Act entitled "An Act to regulate the construction of 
bridges over navigable waters," approved March twenty-third, nineteen 
hundred and six. 

Sec. 2. That said Long Sault Development Company, its succes- 
sors and assigns, shall be subject to the provisions of the treaty between 
the United States and Great Britain relative to the boundary waters 
between the United States and Canada proclaimed by the President of 
the United States on the thirteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and 
ten. 

Sec. 3. That said Long Sault Development Company shall sub- 
mit to the proper authorities within one year from the date of the passage 
of this Act its plans for the works hereby authorized, and the works in the 
channel south of Long Sault island shall be commenced within one yeaj 
and completed within six years from the date of approval by the proper 
authorities of said plans and works, and all of the works hereby author- 
ized shall be completed within fifteen years from the date of approval 
by the proper authorities of said plans and works; and in case of failure 
to comply with the conditions of this section this Act shall be void and 
the rights hereby conferred shall cease and be determined. 

Sec. 4. That if said Long Sault Development Company, or any 
other company or companies /acting with it in such development, shall 
develop power by the construction of works a part of which shall be lo- 
cated north of the International Boundary line, at least one-half of the 
power generated shall be delivered in the United States: Provided, That 
when in the opinion of the Secretary of War and the Chief of Engineers, 
use cannot be found in the United States for the full share thus assigned 
to this country the surplus may be temporarily diverted to Canada, 
but shall be returned to the United States when in the opinion of said 
officers it is needed. 

Sec. 5. That should the works hereby authorized be or become 
at any time, in the opinion of the Secretary of War and the Chief of 
Engineers, inadequate to accommodate or an interference with the 
navigation of that portion of the Saint Lawrence river affected thereby, 
said Company, its successors or assigns, shall, under the supervision of the 
Secretary of War and the Chief of Engineers, make adequate provision 
for the accommodation of navigation; and should said Company, its suc- 
cessors or assigns, fail so to do, the United States Government shall, 
under the supervision of the Secretary of War and the Chief of Engineers, 
do anything required to make such provision for navigation, and the 
expense thereof shall constitute a debt of said Company, its successors 
or assigns, and a lien upon all its property. And should said Company, 



BILL H. R. 22950 229 

its successors or assigns, fail to maintaia or operate its dam or dams, lock 
or locks, with such appurtenances thereto as may be necessary for 
navigation, in such a manner as to adequately provide for navigation, 
the United States Government may, under the supervision of the 
Secretary of War and the Chief of Engineers, assume jurisdiction and 
control over the maintenance and operation thereof; and incase the said 
Company or its successors or assigns shall discontinue the use of the said 
dam or dams and works necessary for navigation connected therewith, 
then the sole ownership therein, together with the necessary land and 
approaches appurtenant thereto, shall vest in the United States so far as 
the same may be located within the territory of the United States. 

Sec. 6. That the right to alter, amend, or repeal this Act is hereby 
expressly reserved, and the United States shall incur no liability because 
of the alteration, amendment, or repeal thereof. 




APPENDIX XXII 



GENERAL DAM LAWS 

Enacted by Congress of the United States. Being, Public No. 
262, 29th Congress, First Session, and Public No. 246, 61st Con- 
gress Second Session. These are the Laws Referred to 
IN Bills Introduced on Behalf of the Long Sault Develop- 
ment Company 

PubUc— No. 262 

An Act to regulate the construction of dams across navigable waters 

BE it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of Americain Congress assembled. That when, here- 
after, authority is granted by Congress to any persons to construct and 
maintain a dam for water-power or other purposes across any of the 
navigable waters of the United States, such dams shall not be built or 
commenced until the plans and specifications for its construction, to- 
gether with such drawings of the proposed construction and such map of 
the proposed location as may be required for a full understanding of the 
subject, have been submitted to the Secretary of War and Chief of 
Engineers for their approval, or until they shall have approved such 
plans and specifications and the location of such dam and accessory 
works; and when the plans for any dam to be constructed under the 
provisions of this Act have been approved by the Chief of Engineers 
and by the Secretary of War it shall not be lawful to deviate from such 
plans either before or after completion of the structure unless the modi- 
fication of such plans has previously been submitted to and received the 
approval of the Chief of Engineers and of the Secretary of War: Pro- 
videdjTh&t in approving said plans and location such conditions and stip- 
ulations may be imposed as the Chief of Engineers and the Secretary of 
War may deem necessary to protect the present and future interests of 
the United States, which may include the condition that such persons 
shall construct, maintain, and operate, without expense to the United 
States, in connection with said dam and appurtenant works, a lock or 
locks, booms, sluices, or any other structures which the Secretary of War 
and the Chief of Engineers at any time may deem necessary in the in- 
terest of navigation, in accordance with such plans as they may approve 
and also that whenever Congress shall authorize the construction of a 



GENERAL DAM LAWS 231 

lock, or other structures for navigation purposes, in connection with such 
dam, the person owning such dam shall convey to the United States, 
free of cost, title to such land as may be required for such constructions 
and approaches, and shall grant to the United States a free use of 
water-power for building and operating such constructions. 

Sec. 2. That the right is hereby reserved to the United States to 
construct, maintain, and operate, in connection with any dam built 
under the provisions of this Act, a suitable lock or locks, or any other 
structures for navigation purposes, and at all times to control the said 
dam and the level of the pool caused by said dam to such an extent as 
may be necessary to provide proper facilities for navigation. 

Sec. 3. That the person, company, or corporation building, main- 
taining or operating any dam and appurtenant works, under the pro- 
visions of this Act, shall be liable for any damage that may be inflicted 
thereby upon private property, either by overflow or otherwise. The 
persons owning or operating any such dam shall maintain, at their 
own expense, such lights and other signals thereon and such fishways 
as the Secretary of Commerce and Labour shall prescribe. 

Sec. 4. That all rights acquired under this Act shall cease and be 
determined if the person, company, or corporation acquiring such 
rights shall, at any time, fail to comply with any of the provisions and 
requirements of the Act, or with any of the stipulations and conditions 
that may be prescribed as aforesaid by the Chief of Engineers and the 
Secretary of War. 

Sec. 5. That any persons who shall fail or refuse to comply with 
the lawful order of the Secretary of War and the Chief of Engineers, 
made in accordance with the provisions of this Act, shall be deemed 
guilty of a violation of this Act, and any persons who shall be guilty 
of a violation of this Act shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and 
on conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five 
thousand dollars, and every month such persons shall remain in default 
shall be deemed a new offense and subject such persons to additional 
penalties therefor; and in addition to the penalties above described the 
Secretary of War and the Chief of Engineers may, upon refusal of the 
persons owning or controlling any such dam and accessory works to 
comply with any lawful order issued by the Secretary of War or Chief 
of Engineers in regard thereto, cause the removal of such dam and access- 
ory works as an obstruction to navigation at the expense of the persons 
owning or controlling such dam, and suit for such expense may be 
brought in the name of the United States against such persons, and 
recovery had for such expense in any court of competent jurisdiction; 
and the removal of any structures erected or maintained in violation of 
the provisions of this Act or the order or direction of the Secretary of 
War or Chief of Engineers made in pursuance thereof may be enforced by 



232 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

injunction, mandamus, or other summary process, upon application to 
the circuit court in the district in which such structure may in whole or 
in part, exist, and proper proceedings to this end may be instituted under 
the direction of the Attorney General of the United States at the re- 
quest of the Chief of Engineers or the Secretary of War; and in case of 
any litigation arising from any obstruction or alleged obstruction to 
navigation created by the construction of any dam under this Act, the 
cause or question arising may be tried before the circuit court of the 
United States in any district in which any portion of said obstruction or 
dam touches. 

Sec. 6. That whenever Congress shall hereafter by law authorize 
the construction of any dam across any of the navigable waters of the 
United States, and no time for the commencement and completion of 
such dam is named in said Act, the authority thereby granted shall 
cease and be null and void unless the actual construction of the dam 
authorized in such Act be commenced within one year and completed 
within three years from the date of the passage of such Act. 

Sec. 7. That the right to alter, amend, or repeal this Act is hereby 
expressly reserved as to any and all dams which may be constructed in 
accordance with the provisions of this Act, and the United States shall 
incur no liability for the alteration, amendment, or repeal thereof to the 
owner or owners or any other persons interested in any dam which shall 
have been constructed in accordance with its provisions. 

Sec. 8. That the word "persons " as used in this Act shall be con- 
strued to import both the singular and the plural, as the case demands, 
and shall include corporations, companies, and associations, 

Approved, June 21, 1906. 

Public— No. 246 

An Act To amend an Act entitled "An Act to regulate the construction 
of dams across navigable waters," approved June twenty-first, nineteen 
hundred and six. 

BE it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled: That the Act 
entitled "An Act to regulate the construction of dams across navigable 
waters," approved June twenty-first, nineteen hundred and six, be, and 
the same is hereby, amended to read as follows: 

"Section 1. That when authority has been or may hereafter be 
granted by Congress, either directly or indirectly or by any official 
or officials of the United States, to any persons, to construct and main- 
tain a dam for water-power or other purpose across or in any of the 
navigable waters of the United States, such dam shall not be built or 



GENERAL DAM LAWS 233 

commenced until the plans and specifications for such dam and all 
accessory works, together with such drawings of the proposed construc- 
tion and such map of the proposed location as may be required for a full 
understanding of the subject, have been submitted to the Secretary of 
War and the Chief of Engineers for their approval, nor until they shall have 
approved such plans and specifications and the location of such dam and 
accessory works; and when the plans and specifications for any dam to 
be constructed under the provisions of this Act have been approved by 
the Chief of Engineers and by the Secretary of War it shall not be lawful 
to deviate from such plans or specifications either before or after com- 
pletion of the structure unless the modification of such plans or specifi- 
cations has previously been submitted to and received the approval of 
the Chief of Engineers and of the Secretary of War: Provided, That in 
approving the plans, specifications, and location for any dam, such con- 
ditions and stipulations may be imposed as the Chief of Engineers and 
the Secretary of War may deem necessary to protect the present and 
future interests of the United States, which may include the condition 
that the persons constructing or maintaining such dam shall construct, 
maintain, and operate, without expense to the United States, in con- 
nection with any dam and accessory or appurtenant works, a lock or 
locks, booms, sluices, or any other structure or structures which the 
Secretary of War and the Chief of Engineers or Congress at any time 
may deem necessary in the interests of navigation, in accordance with 
such plans as they may approve, and also that whenever Congress shall 
authorize the construction of a lock or other structures for navigation 
purposes in connection with such dam, the persons owning such dam 
shall convey to the United States, free of cost, title to such land as may 
be required for such constructions and approaches, and shall grant 
to the United States free water-power or power generated from water- 
power for building and operating such constructions: Provided fur- 
ther, That in acting upon said plans as aforesaid the Chief of Engineers 
and the Secretary of War shall consider the bearing of said structure 
upon a comprehensive plan for the improvement of the waterway over 
which it is to be constructed with a view to the promotion of its naviga- 
ble quality and for the full development of water-power; and, as a part 
of the conditions and stipulations imposed by them, shall provide for 
improving and developing navigation, and fix such charge or charges 
for the privilege granted as may be sufficient to restore conditions with 
respect to navigability as existing at the time such privilege be granted, 
or reimburse the United States for doing the same, and for such addi- 
tional or further expense as may be incurred by the United States with 
reference to such project, including the cost of any investigations ne- 
cessary for approval of plans and of such supervision of construction as 
may be necessary in the interests of the United States: Provided further , 



234 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

That the Chief of Engineers and the Secretary of War are hereby au- 
thorized and directed to fix and collect just and proper charge or charges 
for the privilege granted to all dams authorized and constructed under 
the provisions of this Act which shall receive any direct benefit from the 
construction, operation, and maintenance by the United States of stor- 
age reservoirs at the headwaters of any navigable streams, or from the 
acquisition, holding, and maintenance of any forested watershed, or 
lands located by the United States at the headwaters of any navigable 
stream, wherever such shall be, for the development, improvement, or 
preservation of navigation in such streams in which such dams may be 
constructed. 

" Sec. 2. That the right is hereby reserved to the United States to 
construct, maintain, and operate, in connection with any dam built 
in accordance with the provisions of this Act, a suitable lock or locks, 
booms, sluices, or any other structures for navigation purposes, and at 
all times to control the said dam and the level of the pool caused by said 
dam to such an extent as may be necessary to provide proper facilities 
for navigation. • 

"Sec. 3. That the persons constructing, maintaining, or opera- 
ting any dam or appurtenant or accessory works, in accordance with the 
provisions of this Act, shall be liable for any damage that may be in- 
flicted thereby upon private property, either by overflow or otherwise. 
The persons owning or operating any such dam, or accessory works, sub- 
ject to the provisions of this Act, shall maintain, at their own expense, 
such lights and other signals thereon and such fishways as the Secretary 
of Commerce and Labour shall prescribe, and for failure so to do in any 
respect shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a fine 
of not less than five hundred dollars, and each month of such failure 
shall constitute a separate offence and subject such persons to addi- 
tional penalties therefor. 

" Sec. 4. That all rights acquired under this Act shall cease and be 
determined if the person, company, or corporation acquiring such rights 
shall, at any time fail, after receiving reasonable notice thereof, to 
comply with any of the provisions and requirements of the Act, or with 
any of the stipulations and conditions that maybe prescribed as aforesaid 
by the Chief of Engineers and the Secretary of War, including the pay- 
ment into the Treasury of the United States of the charges provided for 
by section one of this Act: Provided, That Congress may revoke any 
rights conferred in pursuance of this Act whenever it is necessary for 
public use, and, in the event of any such revocation by Congress, the 
United States shall pay the owners of any dam and appurtenant works 
built under authority of this Act, as full compensation, the reasonable 
value thereof, exclusive of the value of the authority or franchise granted 
such reasonable value to be determined by mutual agreement between 



GENEEAL DAM LAWS 235 

the Secretary of War and the said owners, and in case they can not agree, 
then by proceedings instituted in the United States circuit court for the 
condemnation of such properties : And provided also, That the authority 
granted under or in pursuance of the provisions of this Act shall ter- 
minate at the end of a period not to exceed fifty years from the date 
of the original approval of the project under this Act, unless sooner 
revoked as herein provided or Congress shall otherwise direct: Pro- 
vided, however, That this limitation shall not apply to any corporation 
or individual heretofore authorized by the United States, or by any 
State, to construct a dam in or across a navigable waterway, upon 
which dam expenditures of money have heretofore been made in reliance 
upon such grant or grants. 

" Sec. 5. That any persons who shall fail or refuse to comply with 
the lawful order of the Secretary of War and the Chief of Engineers, 
made in accordance with the provisions of this Act, shall be deemed 
guilty of a violation of this Act, and any persons who shall be guilty 
of a violation of this Act shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor 
and on conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine not exceeding 
five thousand dollars, and every month such persons shall remain in 
default shall be deemed a new offense and subject such persons to 
additional penalties therefor; and in addition to the penalties above 
described the Secretary of War and the Chief of Engineers may, upon 
refusal of the persons owning or controlling any such dam and acces- 
sory works to comply with any lawful order issued by the Secretary 
of War or Chief of Engineers in regard thereto, cause the removal 
of such dam and accessory works as an obstruction to navigation at 
the expense of the persons owning or controlling such dam, and suit 
for such expense may be brought in the name of the United States 
against such persons and recovery had for such expense in any court 
of competent jurisdiction. Said provision as to recovery of expense 
shall not apply wherever the United States has been previously re- 
imbursed for such removal; and the removal of any structures erected 
or maintained in violation of the provisions of this Act or the order 
or direction of the Secretary of War or the Chief of Engineers made in 
pursuance thereof may be enforced by injunction, mandamus, or other 
summary process, upon application to the circuit coUrt in the district 
in which such structure may, in whole or in part, exist, and proper 
proceedings to this end may be instituted under the direction of the 
Attorney General of the United States at the request of the Chief of 
Engineers or the Secretary of War; and in case of any litigation arising 
from any obstruction or alleged obstruction to navigation created by 
the construction of any dam under this Act the cause or question arising 
may be tried before the circuit court of the United States in any district 
in which any portion of said obstruction or dam touches. 



236 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

" Sec. 6. That whenever Congress shall hereafter by law authorize 
the construction of any dam across any of the navigable waters of 
the United States, and no time for the commencement and completion 
of such dam is named in said Act, the authority thereby granted shall 
cease and be null and void unless the actual construction of the dam 
authorized in such Act be commenced within one year and completed 
within three years from the date of the passage of such Act. 

" Sec. 7. That the right to alter, amend, or repeal this Act is hereby 
expressly reserved as to any and all dams which may be constructed 
in accordance with the provisions of this Act, and the United States 
shall incur no liability for the alteration, amendment, or repeal thereof 
to the owner or owners or any other persons interested in any dam 
which shall have been constructed in accordance with its provisions. 

" Sec. 8. That the word ' persons ' as used in this Act shall be con- 
strued to import both the singular and the plural, as the case demands, 
and shall include corporations, companies, and associations. The 
word ' dam ' as used in this Act shall be construed to import both the 
singular and the plural, as the case demands." 

Approved, June 23, 1910. 




APPENDIX XXIII 



UNITED STATES FEDERAL ACT 

To Regulate the Construction or Bridges Over Navigable 
Waters. Public No. 65. Approved, March 23rd, 1906. This 
IS THE Law referred to in Bills introduced on behalf 
OF THE Long Sault Development Company 

An Act to regulate the construction bridges over navigable waters 

BE it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled. That when, 
hereafter, authority is granted by Congress to any persons to construct 
and maintain a bridge across or over any of the navigable waters of the 
United States, such bridge shall not be built or commenced until t^ie 
plans and specifications for its construction, together with such drawings 
of the proposed construction and such map of the proposed location 
as may be required for a full understanding of the subject, have been 
submitted to the Secretary of War and Chief of Engineers for their 
approval, nor until they shall have approved such plans and specifica- 
tions and the location of such bridge and accessory works; and when 
the plans for any bridge to be constructed under the provisions of this 
Act have been approved by the Chief of Engineers and by the Secretary 
of War it shall not be lawful to deviate from such plans, either before 
or after completion of the structure, unless the modification of such 
plans has previously been submitted to and received the approval of 
the Chief of Engineers and of the Secretary of War. 

Sec. 2. That any bridge built in accordance with the provisions of 
this Act shall be a lawful structure and shall be recognized and known 
as a post route, upon which no higher charge shall be made for the 
transmission over the same of the mails, the troops, and the munitions 
of war of the United States than the rate per mile paid for the trans- 
portation over any railroad, street railway, or public highway leading 
to said bridge; and the United States shall have the right to construct, 
maintain, and repair, without any charge therefor, telegraph and tele- 
phone lines across and upon said bridge and its approaches; and equal 
privileges in the use of said bridge and its approaches shall be granted 
to all telegraph and telephone companies. 

Sec. 3. That all railroad companies desiring the use of any rail- 
road bridge built in accordance with the provisions of this Act shall be 



238 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

entitled to equal rights and privileges relative to the passage of railway 
trains or cars over the same and over the approaches thereto upon pay- 
ment of a reasonable compensation for such use; and in case of any 
disagreement between the parties in regard to the terms of such use or 
the sums to be paid all matters at issue shall be determined by the 
Secretary of War upon hearing the allegations and proofs submitted 
to him. 

Sec. 4. That no bridge erected or maintained under the provisions 
of this Act shall at any time unreasonably obstruct the free navigation 
of the waters over which it is constructed, and if any bridge erected 
in accordance with the provisions of this Act shall, in the opinion of 
the Secretary of War, at any time unreasonably obstruct such navi- 
gation, either on account of insufficient height, width of span, or other- 
wise, or if there be difficulty in passing the draw opening or the draw- 
span of such bridge by rafts, steamboats, or other water craft, it shall 
be the duty of the Secretary of War, after giving the parties interested 
reasonable opportunity to be heard, to notify the persons owning or 
controlling such bridge to so alter the same as to render navigation 
through or under it reasonably free, easy, and unobstructed, stating in 
such notice the changes required to be made, and prescribing in each 
case a reasonable time in which to make such changes, and if at the end 
of the time so specified the changes so required have not been made, the 
persons owning or controlling such bridge shall be deemed guilty of a 
violation of this Act; and all such alterations shall be made and all 
such obstructions shall be removed at the expense of the persons owning 
or operating said bridge. The persons owning or operating any such 
bridge shall maintain, at their own expense, such lights and other 
signals thereon as the Secretary of Commerce and Labour shall prescribe. 
If the bridge shall be constructed with a draw, then the draw shall be 
opened promptly by the persons owning or operating such bridge upon 
reasonable signal for the passage of boats and other water craft. If 
tolls shall be charged for the transit over any bridge constructed under 
the provisions of this Act, of engines, cars, street cars, wagons, carriages, 
vehicles, animals, foot passengers, or other passengers, such tolls shall 
be reasonable and just, and the Secretary of War may, at any time, 
and from time to time, prescribe the reasonable rates of toll for such 
transit over such bridge, and the rates so prescribed shall be the legal 
rates and shall be the rates demanded and received for such transit. 

Sec. 5. That any persons who shall fail or refuse to comply with 
the lawful order of the Secretary of War or the Chief of Engineers, made 
in accordance with the provisions of this Act, shall be deemed guilty 
of a violation of this Act, and any persons who shall be guilty of a 
violation of this Act shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and on 
conviction thereof shall be punished in any court of competent juns- 



U.S. ACT, BRIDGES OVER NAVIGABLE RIVERS 239 

diction by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, and every month 
such persons shall remain in default shall be deemed a new offense and 
subject such persons to additional penalties therefor; and in addition 
to the penalties above described the Secretary of War and the Chief 
of Engineers may, upon refusal of the persons owning or controlling 
any such bridge and accessory works to comply with any lawful order 
issued by the Secretary of War or Chief of Engineers in regard thereto, 
cause the removal of such bridge and accessory works at the expense 
of the persons owning or controlling such bridge, and suit for such 
expense may be brought in the name of the United States against such 
persons; and recovery had for such expense in any court of competent 
jurisdiction; and the removal of any structures erected or maintained 
in violation of the provisions of this Act or the order or direction of 
the Secretary of War or Chief of Engineers made in pursuance thereof 
may be enforced by injunction, mandamus, or other summary process, 
upon application to the circuit court in the district in which such 
structure may, in whole or in part, exist, and proper proceedings to this 
end may be instituted under the direction of the Attorney General of 
the United States at the request of the Secretary of War; and in case 
of any litigation arising from any obstruction or alleged obstruction 
to navigation created by the construction of any bridge under this Act, 
the cause or question arising may be tried before the circuit court of 
the United States in any district which any portion of such obstruction 
or bridge touches. 

Sec. 6. That whenever Congress shall hereafter by law authorize 
the construction of any bridge over or across any of the navigable 
waters of the United States, and no time for the commencement and 
completion of such bridge is named in said Act, the authority thereby 
granted shall cease and be null and void unless the actual construction 
of the bridge authorized in such Act be commenced within one year 
and completed within three years from the date of the passage of such 
Act. 

Sec. 7. That the word " persons " as used in this Act shall be con- 
strued to import both the singular and the plural, as the case demands, 
and shall include municipalities, quasi-municipal corporations, corpora- 
tions, companies, and associations. 

Sec. 8. That the right to alter, amend, or repeal this Act is heYeby 
expressly reserved as to any and all bridges which may be built in 
accordance with the provisions of this Act, and the United States shall 
incur no liability for the alteration, amendment, or repeal thereof to 
the owner or. owners or any other persons interested in any bridge 
which shall have been constructed in accordance with its provisions. 

Approved, March 23, 1906. 



APPENDIX XXIV 



CONDITIONS 

Pertaining to the St. Lawrence River Between Prescott and 
Cornwall, and the Effect op Damming the River at the 
Foot of the Long Sault Rapids* 

A DELEGATION from Morrisburg and vicinity, including Reeve J. H. 
Meikle, Councillors R. E. Gibson and Irwin Hilliard, and Capt. 
W. J. Murphy, J. Wesley Allison, Morrisburg; Reeve M. J. Casselman, of 
Williamsburg, and Reeve C. E. Cameron, of Iroquois, went to Ottawa 
on Wednesday to enter their protest on behalf of the residents of this 
district in opposition to the proposed damming of the St. Lawrence at 
the Long Sault. They were received at 11.30 a.m., by the Rt. Hon. 
Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Hon. George P. Graham, who gave them an 
hour's attentive hearing. The delegation presented many strong and 
entirely new features to the Ministers, showing why this proposition to 
dam the St. Lawrence should not be permitted, or even considered. 
Several memorials were left with them, the first being that of the town 
of Morrisburg; one signed by the reeve of Iroquois and the reeve of 
Williamsburg township, which represented the farmers between Prescott 
and Mille Roches along the St. Lawrence. Another was signed by 
Capt. Murphy, a river captain for over forty years, and a man who knows 
all the shoals, currents of the river and the ill effects of ice jams, while 
another was signed by Capt. Logan, of Waddington, N. Y. 

In order that our readers may know how keenly the people of this 
district feel towards this proposition, we give the memorials that were 
left with the Government : 

To the Honourable Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and the Members op 
the Dominion Cabinet: 

Honourable Sir, — 

Whereas the Municipal Council of the village of Morrisburg and the 
people living along the St. Lawrence river, in the county of Dundas, 
view with serious alarm the vigorous steps the parties in charge of the 
Long Sault Development scheme are taking to induce the Government 



*This is the testimony of Canadian interests opposing the proposed Long Sault 
dam. It is reprinted from The Leader, of Morrisbvirg, issues of January 27, 
February 3, and February 17, 1910. 




-A 




4 



<#«>%a«<Ma0>" 



a 
H 

o 
o 
J 
CQ 

z 



•z. 



X 

m 

< 
< 



o 



fa 

o 

Q 
G 



O 

o 

h5 




a: 
O 



1 

i' 

t 



i 



4 > 



I 




o 

a 
2 

& 





G 



CANADIAN INTERESTS OPPOSING LONG SAULT DAM 241 

of the Dominion of Canada to pass such legislation as will enable them 
to dam the St. Lawrence at or near the foot of the Long Sault rapids. 

By past and bitter experience such people h^ve learned of the dan- 
gers of an abnormal rise in the waters of the river St. Lawrence, 

During the years 1879, 1887 and 1905, ice dams were formed across 
the river St. Lawrence near the village of Farran Point. This became 
blocked by the piling up of frazil ice and caused the river to rise twelve 
to thirteen feet at Morrisburg. The damages resulting from such high 
water and floating ice shoving over the land were, amongst others, de- 
struction of dwelling houses, bams and outbuildings, trees, telegraph 
and telephone poles. 

By reason of the rise in the river as aforesaid, the water-powers of 
the Williamsburg canal were wiped out. Under leases from the Govern- 
ment of the Dominion of Canada, being numbered respectively 8513, 
13815 and 16110, the corporation of the village of Morrisburg have con- 
tracted and acquired thirty-five horse-power to run their waterworks 
system, put in at an expenditure of thirty-five thousand dollars 
($35,000). 

250 horse-power to run their electric lighting system, erected and 
equipped at an expenditure of thirty-five thousand dollars. 

750 horse-power to run their electric power plant, which has cost the 
said corporation seventy-five thousand dollars. 

Besides the foregoing, there is the water-power under lease to cer- 
tain individuals. 

Your memorialists are satisfied that the damming of the Long Sault 
will cause such a rise in the river as to utterly obliterate the practical use 
for commercial purposes of the aforesaid water-powers, and we strongly 
protest against any change being made in the natural flow of the river by 
your Government that will prevent your Government from fulfilling its 
contracts under said lease. 

The direct result of damming the river at the Long Sault will be 
to slow up the current of the river west of said dam, and cause larger 
quantities of frazil ice to' form, which wUl cause dams to be formed ia the 
river and cause the same to rise and back up over the land and destroy 
much property. 

We believe the scheme has directly for its object the granting to 
capitalists who must of necessity sell their product in a foreign country. 
If the Long Sault should be utilized for power purposes, it' should be 
retained until such time as the population of our country would warrant 
the use of that power in our own country for manufacturing purposes. 
At the present time there is not sufficient need of that developed power 
in our country. Montreal and Ottawa are more than fully supplied. 
If that power be once developed and taken to the United States, it 

16 



242 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

will never be brought back, and our share of that magnificent heritage 
and birthright will be gone forever. 

We alao fear that the matter of the Long Sault development is 
entirely different from power at Niagara Falls, in that it would be a 
joint development, and would in fact, if not in theory, be under the con- 
trol of the stronger and wealthier partner. Again, it would necessitate 
the placing of our shipping under the control of a foreign Governmeni, 
the larger canal being within the territory of the United States, and 
hence we believe that in time the whole scheme would lead to serious 
International complications, and it should be our earnest desire to 
strictly avoid the originating of causes for such complications, and 

Finally, for mere commercial purposes to enrich capitalists, why 
should the scenic beauty of our noble St. Lawrence be destroyed? 

This memorial was signed and sealed by the village clerk. 

The following Memokiax,, Signed by the Reeve of the Village of 

iROQTTOia AND THE ReEVE OF WiLLIAMSBURG ToWNSHIP, WAS 

Presented : 

On behalf of the people of Dundas residing between MUle Roches 
and Prescott, we respectfully but most vigorously enter our protest 
against the proposed scheme of damming the St. Lawrence at the Long 
Sault by the St. Lawrence Power Company. 

Aside from the general Canadian sentiment, which is widespread, 
and which has been repeatedly expressed from various parts of the coun- 
try, there are very many tangible reasons to be advanced against the 
undertaking. 

Naturally, the strongest feeling of animosity towards the scheme 
exists in those communities lying along the river itself. This was more 
evident as a whole some months ago, when the subject was first brought 
to the attention of the public; but we are sorry to see one or two of the 
larger towns (as for instance, Brockville) have become not only luke- 
warm in their opposition, but actually favourable to the scheme. This 
change has been brought about by a vigorous propaganda carried 
on through the local papers, which apparently have very suddenly ex- 
perienced a decided change of opinion with regard to the project. This 
change has been attributed to various reasons by various people, but 
without casting too much reflection on their sincerity, we feel justified 
in sajdng that many of the inducements held out by the papers on 
behalf of the Company, are not only quite vague, but entirely imprac- 
ticable. 

The inducement of cheap power was offered to Morrisburg as well 
as to Prescott, Broclcville, etc.; but we were and are more dubious 
than they of the fulfilment of the promise, for various reasons; among 



CANADIAN INTERESTS OPPOSING LONG SAULT DAM 243 

these reasons the statement of several experts who declare it would not 
pay the St. Lawrence Power Co. to erect and maintain a transmission 
line to these points for the comparatively insignificant amount of 
power required; but that the company will transmit the great bulk of 
their power to New York, where it can be delivered en bloc. 

But, in addition to this, the fact must not be overlooked that the 
towns and farm lands east of Prescott are liable to serious damage 
from the raising of the water, which wUl occur. In the case of the town 
of Morrisburg, for instance, we have good reason to fear that the raise 
of water would flood the tail races of their municipal power plants, and 
destroy their docks, etc., as at present, according to Government 
survey, 1896, the water at the foot of the Morrisburg canal is only 10.85 
feet above level of water in river at head of Cornwall canal. 

To what length the water will be backed up at Morrisburg by the 
proposed dam, even the best of expert engiaeers are unable to calculate. 
To illustrate this, we beg leave to quote Professor Mansfield Merriman, 
of Lehigh University, one of the greatest authorities on hydraulics, and 
the author of several works which have become standard among 
engineers : 

" When a dam is built across a channel, the water surface is 

raised for a long distance up stream. This is a fruitful source of 

contention and accordingly many attempts have been made to 

discuss it theoretically in order to compute the probable increase 

in depth at various distances back from a proposed dam. None of 

these can be said to have been successful, except for the simple 

case where the slope of the bed of the channel is constant and its 

cross-section such that its width may be regarded as uniform, and 

the hydraulic radius be taken equal to the depth." 

The above conditions mentioned in the exception are a long way 

from being fulfilled in that stretch of the St. Lawrence river between 

the site of the proposed dam and Morrisburg. One can hardly imagine 

a large river more non-uniform in a distance of fifteen miles, than this 

section, being cut up by numerous islands, the shore line indented by 

numerous bays, with long projecting points, causing some stretches to 

be narrow and deep, and others to be quite wide and shallow. A 

Government chart of this section of the St. Lawrence river, prepared 

by A. J. Grant, C.E., in 1896, for the Canadian Government, shows a 

fall of only 10.85 feet in the distance of 15.7 miles from the foot of 

Morrisburg canal to head of Cornwall canal, or an average fall of 8 

inches per mile. Now the Long Sault rapid is practically the outlet 

of this fifteen-mile stretch of river. If this free outlet causes a fall of 

8 inches per mile, then if this outlet is obstructed ever so little, it would 

cause an ever lessening proportional fall in surface of river for an 

indeterminate distance back, or in other words a "back-water;" or, 



244 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

as the experts would describe, the slope of the uniform flow is an 
asymptote to the back-water curve. That this back-water is much 
greater than the average person would imagine, the following simple 
illustration will show : — A stream five feet deep is to be dammed so that 
water will be 10 feet at dam. The uniform slope of stream is 1 foot 
per mile, and its channel is such that the co-efficient is 65. It is found 
that at the distance of 5 miles upstream the water is 6 feet deep. That 
is, the water is raised one foot at a distance of 5.7 miles upstream from 
dam in spite of fact that fall in bed of channel is nearly 5.7 feet. 

During the winter season all these adverse conditions will be 
increased by ice troubles of several kinds. First, the surface area of 
the river above dam will be immediately and considerably increased, 
thus lessening the current and allowing the shore ice to form out much 
further and thicker than at present, and therefore lessening the width 
of the open channel. So we have a winter condition in which the bays 
of ice are largely increased in area and the open channel considerably 
lessened in width, hence it will be much easier for an ice-bridge to form 
by swinging out one of these numerous ice bays by a favourable wind. 
Even under present conditions several ice-bridges have been formed in 
recent years. A bridge once formed, though even on the surface, is 
quickly re-enforced by floating ice and frazil ice. This frazil ice is 
always present to some extent in our open streams, and extends down 
several feet from the surface in the shape of fine crystals. These crystals 
adhere to anything they touch in the stream, and readily collect on the 
under surface of the ice in the main channel, e.g., the ice-bridge. Succes- 
sive layers of this soon form a curtain extending from the under surface 
of the ice-bridge down several feet. This curtain also catches all the 
anchor ice which has risen part way to the surface, and then floating 
with the current is just in shape to hang on any obstruction in its path, 
thus increasing the wall. So it is quite apparent that these ice-curtains 
may form miles upstream from where the ice-bridge was first swung 
across, finally forming a complete jam in the river. 

How far the water will back up when this occurs, is indeed hard to 
determine, as the worst jam up to the present did not approach to 
having such favourable conditions for formation. 

So much for an open channel down the river, but with the plans 
proposed by the Company, the current will not in this increased cross- 
section be strong enough to keep the channel open very long, after 
winter once sets in. 

In the first place the company's engineers are stating that the cur- 
rent leading from the dam will flow slowly enough for heavily laden 
boats to make good time upstream, and secondly, that they will utilize 
the sluice gates which will be situated in the dam far below the water 
surface, to prevent the water flowing over the spillway, and in this way 



CANADIAN INTERESTS OPPOSING LONG SAULT DAM 245 

decrease the amount of frazil ice formed by the cold water striking a 
thin sheet of roughened surface of water, and which now nearly every 
winter collects to such an extent in lake St. Francis that it floods out 
the lower portions of the town of Cornwall. 

Now, both these cases go to prove that it need not be necessary for a 
bay to swing out to start an ice blockade in the river; but that either the 
surface ice in the slack water in front of the dam or the constant stream of 
floating ice coming up against the dam when the water is going through the 
sluices and not over, will soon collect in quantities sufficient to completely 
cover that section of the river for miles upstream. 

Again, it is a well-known fact that a power company in our northern 
climate will spend vast sums in order to obtain a reservoir or forebay 
in front of its racks large enough, and hence quiet enough to allow the 
surface to become frozen over and stay in that state most of the winter. 
What would the Lachine Power Co. give for such a forebay, and what 
would it be worth to Massena during even the present mild winter? 

Therefore, the inevitable conclusion is that the conditions which 
the engineers of the Company must have for the successful operations 
of their plant and lock approaches will be the very conditions that will 
allow in winter time the formation of a continuous sheet of ice above 
their dams for a considerable distance up-stream. 

And as stated above, although these would be the conditions with 
a dam, and also the ideal conditions for the maintenance and constant 
operation of their power-plants, they are the very conditions which are 
sure to lead to the most disastrous results in the formation of large ice 
jams early in the winter, which will increase to unprecedented dimensions 
as the season advances. 

The following extract from the report of the Montreal Flood Com- 
mission will be of interest in showing the points at which ice troubles 
are in the habit of occurring : 

"The St. Lawrence is a river of such width and depth that 
notwithstanding the great volume of water which it carries (its 
low-water discharge above lake St. Peter being 315,000 cubic feet 
per second) , its extreme range between highest and lowest water- 
marks is only about six feet, or one-tenth that of the Ohio at 
Cincinnatti. Whenever this range is exceeded, as at Cornwall, 
Beauharno s and Montreal it is only in winter, and is due to the 
packing of ice. The river below Montreal is affected by ice from 
tide-water to the foot of Lachine rapids — a distance of 80 miles — ■ 
and with the exception of what are called air-holes, the whole 
surface is covered with ice. But above the Lachine rapids, the 
winter level is only elevated by ice for a short distance opposite 
Cornwall and Beauharnois. All the remainder embracing both 
open water river section and ice covered lake sections, with rare 



246 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

local exceptions, maintains the ordinary level. The exceptions 
are where an ice-bridge or jam may occur in the narrower 
channels above the Cornwall canal in very severe winters, or 
where a bridge is formed artificially by sawing off enough bordage 
ice and swinging it across the channel to an island, to give com- 
munication to the main land. These bridges do not effect the 
river levels at that site, but by arresting floating ice, may advance 
the bridge up-stream to a point where shallower water and a 
swifter current may cause a pack and form a dam. The open water 
sections are about 40 miles in length, between Cornwall and Pres- 
cott, and about 15 miles between lake St. Francis and lake St. 
Louis, and about 10 miles between the ice-covered portion of the 
latter and the foot of the Lachine rapids. There is no case of a 
permanent winter dam where there is open water immediately 
below it (as in the case of a gorge at the break-up of the ice), but 
the permanent winter rise at Cornwall and Beauharnois takes 
place under the same conditions as that at Montreal, namely, 
the junction of a river section of open water with one which is 
closed, or of a strong current with comparatively dead water." 
The damage done to the river front in Montreal before the costly 
protecting wall was built, is well known. Ice-bridges and shoves have 
been of common occurrence at the Cedar rapids. Cornwall has experi- 
enced many floods caused by the accumulation of ice in lake St. Francis. 
The surface ice on lake St. Francis only serves to form a bridge 
and this catches the abundant and incessant flow of slush ice mingled 
with more or less of detached surface ice. This flow from the swift 
channel striking the quieter waters of the lake is checked, giving the 
frazil ice an opportuntiy to cement the larger cakes together, thus 
adding to the strength of the front of the bridge. Meanwhile the 
bordage ice, thickened by frost and snow (made heavier by thaws and 
occasional rain, as well as the filling up underneath by frazil and anchor 
ice) begins to encroach upon the waterway, causing a gradual rise of the 
surface. This rise lifts the bordages, and often detaches them from the 
shore, when in a favourable position, and aided by wind and current, 
they move down the main channel until arrested by the ice-bridge. 
Then if there occurs a heavy snow-storm with a wind sweeping the 
surface of the large bays of their snow (the river at times becomes very 
nearly impassable in row-boats from this cause) we have a mass which 
quickly fiUs any interstices in the floating cakes, and the up-stream 
march of the ice-bridge becomes very rapid. 

Now, with a dam at the Long Sault, all this accumulation will 
occur in its quiet waters early in the season — depending upon the 
weather — the bridge will rapidly extend up-stream until it reaches 
Weaver point, where the width is greatly lessened by the rocky pro- 



CANADIAN INTERESTS OPPOSING LONG SAULT DAM 247 

jection, and the current proportionately increased. Here the ice flow- 
ing down the river collects against the narrow front of the bridge. At 
first the floating cakes are often tilted on edge by the current extending 
some distance both above and below the surface, and all the open spaces 
are rapidly choked with frazil and floating snow slush. Some of the 
lower riding cakes of anchor ice with an abundant supply of frazil during 
favourable conditions, find their way under the surface, but only to rise 
and become firmly attached to the under-surface when the quieter 
waters are reached, and hence gradually increasing the thickness of the 
surface and forming a hanging curtain near the front of the ice-bridge. 
The jam here grounds on the south shore, and when the water rises to a 
sufl&cient height in front, enough pressure is obtained to cause a shove, 
which naturally takes the same direction as the slope of the river-bed, 
that is towards the Canadian shore. This occurred in 1887 and 1905. 
In the former year a brick house was cut down and the occupants barely 
escaped with their lives. A little further along another house had its 
lower storey destroyed and the house wrecked. But these shoves only 
tend to tighten the jam, and a second bridge forms above it, and this 
proceeds up the river until another narrow portion is found. In 1905 
this second bridge extended six miles above Weaver point, or just above 
Morrisburg, its front running from above Canada island in an oblique 
line down stream towards the canal bank. Here, fortunately, warmer 
\^eather stopped its progress, otherwise a second jam would have been 
formed, and as the current sets very strongly towards the north shore, 
the accompanying shove would very likely have sheared off the canal 
bank, as well as making a wreck of the town's pump-house, and other 
buildings along the shore. 

From navigation charts, the next narrow parts of the river can be 
easily located as Pine Tree point and Rockway point at Iroquois, where 
a shove, which must take the same direction as the current, would 
certainly destroy the low-lying portion of that town. 

During the jam of 1879, although the ice did not reach within four 
miles of Morrisburg, the water ran over the banks of the Morrisburg 
canal at the head locks above Rapide Plat, so it is well within reason 
that with an early formation down the river and a severe winter, the 
water should raise to a far greater extent than it did that year, and 
easily overcome the fall of 3.36 feet between the head of Morrisburg 
canal and Iroquois. How much farther this bridge with its jams would 
proceed up the river no one can tell. 

But the history of the last three serious blockades is well known. 
The oldest inhabitant never heard of a jam in the river tiU they swung 
these obstructions at Croil island. 

That of 1879 was caused by the swinging of a bay across from 
Croil island to Baker point, in the north channel, and from head of Croil 



248 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

islaJid to the American shore on the South side. The ice extended as far 
as Weaver point, the first narrow part of the river, where a jam occurred, 
and the shove which followed swept across the low-lands at that point. 
At this time the water was raised at Morrisburg, a distance of 6 miles up- 
stream from the front of the bridge to a greater height than that caused 
by the jam of 1905. 

In 1887, the bridge was swung again at Weaver point in the North 
channel, but across the channel between Ghat and Croil islands on the 
South side. The first jam, as in 1879, occurred at Weaver point, the ice- 
bridge extending only a short distance above it. The water at Morrisburg 
was raised 12 feet above normal, and was only prevented from flooding 
the canal by the placing of flash-boards on the lock-gates at the head. 
The shove at Weaver point destroyed both a brick and frame dwelling, 
which were in its path. All the roads along the river and a portion of 
the farms on the bank of the river, were flooded. 

In 1905, the ice-bridge started from the same points as that of 1887, 
but, this time, the bridge, after forming a jam at Weaver point ex- 
tended a quarter of a mile above Morrisburg, the front running from 
the head of Canada island obliquely down stream to the canal bank. 
At this narrow section of the river the cakes were lying up-ended, many 
being thrown on top of the bridge and along the shores, others forced and 
held under the water surface, and a second jam was in the process of being 
formed. However, the lateness of the season and a period of mild 
weather prevented the completion with its attending shove. 

Between the above years other bridges have occurred at Weaver 
point, but mild and unfavourable weather caused them to break up 
before the water was raised to much extent. 

Some Effects on Navigation 

Next consider some of the detrimental effects of the proposed plans 
on navigation. The new and improved locks will be situated between 
the foot of the Long Sault island and the American shore. With this 
method of overcoming a 47-foot lift in one lockage or even two, will 
there ever be breakages, with their accompanying disasters, such as have 
occurred at Sault Ste. Marie ? 

The channel between Barnhart island and the American shore lead- 
ing to the proposed site of the locks is intricate, winding, with several 
cross-currents and strong back eddies, all of which make it very difficult 
for navigating even the shorter craft, either up or down. Then consider 
the proposed state of this channel when its main feeder between Long 
Sault island and Barnhart island is dammed and the South channel is 
completely shut off with locks and its quiet water approaches. The 
water will be lowered and will flow swifter, so that it will be impossible 
to make the points with any ordinary craft. 



CANADIAN INTERESTS OPPOSING LONG SAULT DAM 249 

Every river man knows that the current opposite Cornwall is run- 
ning swifter than any place in the boat channel between the Cornwall 
canal and Morrisburg, and it certainly would not be a saving in time 
to cause a boat to hang in such a current. 

Then again, with an ice-bridge extending even as far as Morris- 
burg, it is doubtful if the river could be cleared of ice, especially the 
great heavier masses gathered in the swift water, in time for the usual 
opening of navigation, and certainly would close navigation a month 
earlier at least, thus cutting off at both ends during the busy season ; and, 
in addition, there is liable to be a much longer delay caused by damage 
sustained to the canal banks by the ice-shoves accompanying the ice- 
jams. 

With the high water of the past few seasons ( and the water of the 
last two years has had the highest level since 1871) the canal banks 
have suffered considerably from the wash of the liners as they pass down 
the channel. Now, with the river dammed, this would be continually 
occurring, and would be an additional expense to the Government of 
hundreds of thousands of dollars per annum. 

The Cornwall bridge spanning the river and owned by the New York 
and Ottawa division of the New York Central railway, has a clearance of 
only 60 feet from the water. Therefore, how will the boats pass under 
it if they should be forced to take this channel. The R. & 0. boats run- 
ning the rapids have all cut off their spars. When the bridge was built, 
the engineers decided that the bottom of the river was not suitable for a 
pier, even if it were practical for a swing span to be operated, and it 
would certainly be impracticable to increase the height of the bridge 
suflSciently to give the steamers the necessary head room. 

Capt. W. J. MuRPHT Presented the following Memorial: 

That the property owners and citizens of Morrisburg and vicinity 
should feel strongly over the proposal to dam the Long Sault rapids is 
very natural, as lifeJong residents, men of much experience on the river 
who have watched the operations of its waters winter and summer for 
long years, and understand its currents, shoals and rapids, are strong in 
their opinions if this scheme is carried out that the canal and docks at 
Farran Point and Morrisburg will be submerged, even in summer time. 
The damage to property not only at Morrisburg, but along the river 
front for miles up and down as well, could not be estimated. 

There is a fall in the river from the head of the Galop rapids to the 
foot of the Long Sault of some 90 feet, with open water in winter for about 
50 miles above the Sault. A succession of rapids occur from the head 
of the Galop rapids to the foot of the Long Sault. In places the rapids 
are shallow, and there are narrow stretches at some points; the 



250 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

banks in winter are piled with snow, and this is continually 
being drifted into the river, forming slush ice; heavy falls of 
snow occur, adding to the large . flow of slush ice. At narrow 
points this is jammed together, and checks the flow of the ice. 
Any obstruction that stops the flow of the current would produce 
ice jams at these places; ice formed from snow is the worst in case 
of stoppage. At points near the lower rapids, it becomes solid and 
grounded on the bottom of the river; the continued flow of ice and snow 
adds to the mass, and a solid jam is formed. At once a raise of the 
water occurs above the dam, the heavy bay ice is loosened by the raising 
of the water, and is added to the already accumulated mass; shoves 
occur, and the accumulation growing more solid as it continues to be 
shoved together, should weather conditions continue favourable, this 
goes on for days, and results in such serious floods as are referred to 
below. It is a matter of proof that at one time the water raised at Mor- 
risburg during one night 15 to 20 inches. Inquiry made by telephone at 
Farran Point elicited the reply that there was no jam of ice at that place, 
A further inquiry at Dickinson Landing being made, it was learned that 
an ice jam had formed below the Long Sault rapids near Cornwall, of 
about 20 feet in height, and that this had caused a rise in the water at 
Dickinson Landing of from 3 to 4 feet. 

In 1887, an ice jam formed at Farran Point, and the water rose at 
Morrisburg 12 feet above normal, so that the water ran over the top of 
the gates from the river, and boards were put on the top of the gates to 
prevent the flooding of the canal. At this time the Rapide Plat was 
smooth water. 

At a point opposite Morrisburg, in the state of New York, one- 
third of a farm was under water, and the owner had to build platforms 
to keep his cattle out of the water; had the water gone much higher his 
stock would have been drowned. 

At Weaver point, a short distance below Morrisburg, the ice 
shoved. It carried down a brick house, which caught fire from the stove 
and was destroyed, the occupants having only time to get out, so 
sudden did the shove occur. A short distance above, the lower storey 
of another house was destroyed. 

The proposed dam, if built, is sure to decrease the speed of the 
current and cause the jamming of the ice, the Long Sault being in reality 
a safety valve for this portion of the river, taking away the ice formed 
in the swift open water above. 

The fact that the serious flood of 1879 was caused by the swinging 
of an ice-bridge at Farran Point, is positive proof that any obstruction 
that stops the flow of the ice produces the jams. 

Were the proposed dam to be built, there is every reason to think 
that for some distance at least above the head of the Long Sault there 



CANADIAN INTERESTS OPPOSING LONG SAULT DAM 251 

would be slack water. This would become frozen across and operate 
precisely as did the ice-bridge swung at Farran Point in 1879. 

The oldest inhabitants now living never heard of an ice jam in the 
St. Lawrence until ice-bridges were swung. 

The ice jam of 1879 did not reach within four miles of Morrisburg, 
and yet water was higher than in 1905, when the i6e jam extended a 
quarter of a mile above the village. At that time, had a heavy fall of 
snow occurred, it would have shoved at the foot of the rapids, and 
carried away the power-house and flume, and might have caused a break 
in the canal, and no doubt an untold amount of damage would have 
been done. As it was, the fire at the pumping station was put out under 
the boiler. 

In case the dam is built, the jam would start much earlier in the season, 
consequently a larger accumulation of ice would be made, and heavy falls 
of snow for a longer period would cause a more serious flood. 

It is said by the promoters, through the press, that much time 
would be saved in moving passengers and freight by boats using the 
proposed lock in the dam to be built in American territory. Experi- 
enced river men think that, as a matter of fact, the current above 
Cornwall is so strong that no tow of barges or freight boats could go 
up to the proposed site of the lock, owing to the channel being crooked 
and very shallow in places. 



APPENDIX XXV 

ICE CONDITIONS ON THE ST. LAWRENCE 
By 

Prof. H. T. Barnes, D.Sc, F.R.S., Director of Physics, McGill 
University, Montreal 

THE freezing of the St. Lawrence river takes place throughout its 
entire length in very much the same way each year. With the 
advent of cold weather the temperature of the water falls to the freezing 
point and ice commences to form over the surface. On account of the 
current, which averages one mile per hour in the main channel in the 
wider parts, no ice would form permanently over the surface were it not 
for the " ice packs " th^t occur in the narrower parts. From these points 
of stoppage the ice builds backwards against the current, and soon 
covers over large areas. Thus, lakes St. Peter, St. Louis and St. Francis 
freeze over at the lower ends first and gradually spread up stream. 
Bays and inlets, where the water is comparatively still, contribute to 
the freezing, and ice is quickly formed. Wind-drifted ice scum has much 
to do with this first freezing of the river. Much of the river remains 
open for the entire winter even in the coldest weather, and it is for this 
reason we have long been familiar with interesting and varied forms of 
ice. 

Since 1895, 1 have given close attention to the river ice, and have 
found that it is possible to distinguish three main types. These have 
long been known to river-men, and possess different names in different 
places. I shall attempt to describe these forms and the physical condi- 
tions giving rise to their formation. 

Surface or Sheet Ice 

This ice forms over all the wider parts of the river, and usually 
commences from the accumulation of surface-formed ice, blown by the 
wind, as scum is blown, into the bays or inlets or narrower parts. An 
artificial boom, or a ledge of rock will often give strength enough for 
the surface ice to build back until the sheet extends many miles up 
stream, covering a current of quickly flowing water. 

Once started this surface sheet grows rapidly in thickness at first, 
and then with increasing slowness by the conduction of heat, through 



ICE CONDITIONS ON.;tHE ST. LAWRENCE 253 

the ice, to the cold winter air. I have studied the progress of the 
growth with great care, and have found that an average thickness of 
26 inches of ice forms over most of the St. Lawrence river. Towards the 
end of the winter, generally about the first of March, the ice reaches its 
maximum thickness, and then steadily but slowly, grows less, until 
towards the middle of April it is reduced to about half its thickness. 
When rotted by the strong sun and warm winds of spring, the ice sheet 
becomes a mass of vertical ice needles, ready to topple over like a row 
of bricks, at the slightest displacement. This has given rise to the 
tradition that, in the spring, the ice sinks, so quickly do the ice needles 
melt in the warmer underwater, once they have been turned over. My 
study has shown that a small elevation in the temperature of the water 
above the freezing point has an important influence on the thickness 
attained by the ice-sheet during the winter. A small temperature 
elevation above the freezing point, such as a hundredth of a degree 
Centigrade, (32 + 018° F.) will determine the limit to which ice will 
grow. 

Open spaces are often found in the otherwise uniform ice-sheet, 
covering the lakes of the St. Lawrence. Temperature measurements 
in these "air-holes" have shown as much as jgjths of a degree above 
the freezing point, which is sufficient to permanently prevent any 
surface ice from forming there. The higher temperature is due to a 
current of water deflected upwards from below. 

Surface ice, while it protects the water from the direct action of the 
wind, also shuts out the warmth of the sun's rays. This is noticed to a 
marked degree in the spring of the year before the surface ice moves 
out of the river. While it is observed that the lakes freeze from their 
lower end upwards, it is also known that they melt and clear from their 
upper ends downwards. There is a tendency for ice to melt and pack 
in the lower parts of the river owing to the earlier disintegration in the 
upper parts, and every year tremendous ice shoves are observed at 
different places. Fig. 1 shows the Lake St. Louis ice piled up on the 
guard pier at Lachine, after the movement of the ice in the spring. 

There are times when surface ice is of advantage, while circum- 
stances may arise which render an open channel preferable. 

If the St. Lawrence channel could be kept open throughout its 
entire length great advantage would result. All floating ice would be 
carried down to tide-water and there disposed of, and the average ice 
production in the river lessened. An earlier opening of navigation 
would result with the earlier disintegration of the ice in the spring. 
Whenever an ice-bridge is formed, having open-water conditions above, 
such as at Lachine, the Cascades, and at Cornwall, the floating ice is 
stopped and forms an ice-pack. The seriousness of the ice-pack can be 
more readily appreciated when I have described the second form of ice 
met with in the river. 



254 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

Frazil Ice 

Frazil is a French -Canadian term for fine, spicular ice, from the 
French for forge-cinders, which it is supposed to resemble. It is always 
formed in an open channel, where the current is flowing too swiftly for 
the border-ice to meet over the surface, and is often called " slush ice." 
It is partly a surface-formed ice which cannot remain attached and 
freeze into a surface sheet, and partly a product of the interior freezing 
of the mass of the water. It occurs in varying degrees of fineness, from 
plate ice, which forms on a smooth gliding surface, to the finest needle 
crystals, which are hardly discernible to the eye. Frazil crystals grow 
in bulk, when carried far in open water. 

Artificial frazil ice may be formed by subjecting water to rapid 
agitation in a cold atmosphere. A tub of water placed out of doors in 
winter and rapidly stirred, soon turns to slush by the copious growth 
of these fine crystals. It is safe to say that a long stretch of open water 
becomes loaded to the bottom with frazil during a period of intense 
cold and great wind agitation. During such a time the water appears 
dull in colour, presenting an appearance of being mixed with fine sand. 
At any time during cold weather, the water may be seen to be carrying 
numerous fine crystals by withdrawing a sample in a clear glass for 
inspection. The amount it may contain will depend entirely upon the 
weather conditions. A dull stormy day with a wind that blows against 
the current is productive of the greatest amount. This is the result of 
the surface agitation, together with the rapid extraction of heat. A 
bright sunny day, although very cold, does not show much frazil forma- 
tion on account of the absorption of the sun's rays near the surface 
offsetting the cooling effect of the air. At night, under a clear sky, with 
wind agitation, a large amount will be formed, depending on the tempera- 
ture of the air. I have found in the water on an average cold day in 
winter very fine needle crystals to the extent of about a quarter of a 
million per cubic foot. During severe weather I have found this number 
rise to several millions. 

It is the frazil ice which causes an open channel to be of so much 
trouble to engineering operations whenever frost occurs: for, although 
a surface sheet may be formed lower down, the fine ice is carried far 
under the surface ice by the currents. Serious changes of level 
often occur in a river, by the damming up, or complete stoppage 
of a channel by frazil carried under the surface ice, and building down 
on both sides of the channel. Great masses of frazil accumulate in the 
quiet bays by the drifting in of the fine crystals, and their subsequent 
settling upwards to the under side of the surface sheet. The crystals 
soon become attached to the surface ice, and attain depths reaching to 
the bottom of the river: in some cases we have observed a depth of 
80 feet. 



ICE CXDNDITIONS ON THE ST. LAWRENCE 256 

In taking soundings through the ice, the lead may usually be sunk 
through the masses of frazil, but often these become frozen together so 
hard as to resist all efforts at penetration. The distance to which frazil 
ice will be carried depends on the swiftness of the currents, and the 
amount of open channel above. In the St. Lawrence river, at Montreal, 
the frazil, generated for the most part in the open water of Lachine 
rapids and above, is found attached as far as Varennes, twelve miles 
below. In this case the river is open above the rapids as far as lake St. 
Louis, a distance of seven miles. 

The greatest packing of the ice occurs at Cornwall, where the swift 
current all the way from Prescott, a distance of over 40 miles, aided by 
the agitation of the Long Sault rapids, generates tons upon tons of frazil 
ice. This ice is carried into the wide expanse of lake St. Francis where it , 
meets the quieter waters, and rising to the surface, produces rapid 
freezing. The ice-bridge once formed causes the stoppage of the ice, 
and very soon the narrow channels around Cornwall island become 
choked, and the winter pack begins. A rise of water level at once sets 
in which causes great upheavals of the ice until a final balance of 
level is established sufficient to give the water a passage under the ice. 
From this time onwards, during the winter, a rise and fall of level goes 
on as additional quantities of ice are carried down from the open water 
above. Fig. 2 shows the ice pack as it appears in the winter at the 
upper end of Cornwall island at Polly gut. It should be remembered 
that this ice pack, which is almost solid up to the end of Barnhart 
island, is of less extent than it would have been had not the wide expanse 
of lake St. Francis taken care of the enormous quantity of frazil ice 
brought down during the greatest ice-producing months of December 
and January. 

During the winter, ice shoves result from the ice-packing, and cause 
in a few hours, a rise of water level with accompanying floods and depo- 
sition of ice along the shore. Fig. 3 shows the result of one of these ice 
shoves after the water has cleared a passage for itself, leaving huge 
blocks of ice high and dry along the shore. Fig. 4 shows the character 
of a small portion of one of the frazil ice-packs on the St. Lawrence. A 
channel has been cut through the lower end of it by means of an ice- 
breaker. The ice is standing fully six feet out of the water, buoyed up 
by the masses of frazil underneath. I have observations of frazil rising 
twelve or fifteen feet out of the water when liberated by the action of 
the ice-breakers. Fig. 5 is a photograph of a penstock which has 
been filled with frazil in a few hours. 

Anchor Ice. 

The form of ice which has attracted the most attention of all the 
forms to be met with in nature is that known in this country as anchor 



256 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

ice. As its name implies, it is ice that is attached or anchored to the 
bottom of a river or stream. It seems to have been observed in nearly 
all countries where river ice is formed, and goes by various names such 
as ground ice or bottom ice. 

We find that, as early as 1810, writers of that time drew a distinc- 
tion between three kinds of river ice: 1. That which forms on the 
surface; 2. Another kind formed in the middle of the water resembling 
nuclei or hail; 3. Ground ice, which is produced at the bottom, 
especially where there is any fibrous substance to which it may adhere. 
This is described by the early writers as "full of cells like a wasp's nest 
but less regular, and performs many strange effects in bringing up very 
heavy bodies from the bottom by means of its own inferiority in specific 
gravity to the water in which it is formed. The ice which forms in the 
middle of the water rises to the top and there unites into large masses; 
but the formation both of this and the ground ice takes place only in 
violent and sudden colds, where the water is shallow and the surface 
is disturbed in such a manner that the congelation cannot take place. 
The ground ice is very destructive to dykes and other aquatic works. 
In the more temperate European climates these kinds are not met 
with." 

These three forms of ice are what we term sheet, frazil, and anchor 
ice. 

The worst effects which are met with in engineering works are from 
frazil crystals formed during extreme weather, when anchor ice is frozen 
down and rapidly growing and not, as is sometimes supposed, when 
moderate weather occurs when these huge lumps become loose and rise to 
the surface. (See fig. 7.) The conditions under which anchor ice will 
form are not the same as for frazil and vice versa. Methods of con- 
struction to obviate the one will not meet the exigencies of the other. 
As long as the ice problem lasts we shall find circumstances conducive 
to the formation of one or the other, or both. In a shallow, smooth- 
flowing river we are more likely to have anchor ice formed in excess, 
whereas in a deep and turbulent stream we are likely to have more 
frazil. It is hardly likely, however, that there will be a great difference 
in the amount of frazil formed in either case : it will probably be that 
more or less anchor ice will appear in proportion. In a river even as deep 
as 30 or 40 feet anchor ice is known to form. 

Everything seems to point to radiation as the cause of anchor ice, 
and it is a great question whether it would form at aU, or except in 
exposed or exceedingly shallow rapids, unless the first coating of ice 
was placed over the rocks by the radiation of heat. The water flowing 
over the rocks at the bottom is always very close to the freezing point. 
The deviations from the freezing point during the winter are seldom 
greater than jjjth of a degree. Ice cannot form on the bed of a 






,5 


I — ( 


^ 


r^^ 












Q ■-< 


2; 


'^ 


-^ 


s 




>^ 


o 


o 


w^ 


K* 




o 


;^ 




^ 


r^A 




H 


"^^ 


K 


■3 


P5 


5^ 


w 


^ 


w 


^ 


P5 


^ 


cc 


"S 


-^ 


o 


K 


^*-H 


.^ 




s 


'A 


Eh 


s 


^<i 


H 


^ 


H 






H 


O 


M 


o 


H 


33 




W 




H^ 


rfl 


o 










P 


r-^ 


o 





"W 



o 


^ 


w 


^ 


^ 


^H 


■^ 


^ 


K-l 


In 


h 






H 


o 

o 


'1 


<; 


O 


S) 


r. 


'^ 





J 


K 




w 


< 


r^ 



Q 


. 




Z 

3 


I^H 


J 

H 


l^ 


r' 




'■~> 


o 


K 


H -/-; 


rf) 




z 


K 






^ 


-f^ 




'Z> 




y, 


'O 


f^ 


h'n 


w 



ICE CONDITIONS ON THE ST. LAWRENGB 267 

river by heat lost directly to the water. The utmost frost that we have 
ever observed in water is only '006 of a degree below freezing, which 
would have a small influence in cooling the bed directly. Unlike open 
ground, subjected to extremely cold air, the bed of a river cannot 
become frozen to any depth. 

It is to the radiation of heat from a river, which goes on all the time 
to the colder air above, that we must look for the main cause of anchor 
ice. During the daytime, under a clear sky, we have the sun's heat 
radiated down through the water and offsetting the cooling effect 
produced by the space radiation; and on a cloudy day we have the 
radiation checked by the clouds. On a clear night in winter the circum- 
stances are entirely favourable to excessive radiation. It might, at 
first, appear that there was a much larger amount of heat radiated to 
the bottom of a river by the sun whose temperature is so high, than is 
radiated out of the river into space. This is apparently quite true, 
and, but for the short time during which the sur shines in the winter, 
and the consequent lessening of the heat which actually reaches the 
bottom, it is a question whether anchor ice would ever form. 

The influence of the sun is everywhere observed in the formation of 
both frazil and anchor ice: in the former by warming the water and 
preventing it from becoming under-cooled, and in the latter by loosening 
the masses of anchor ice and causing them to rise. Frazil is never 
observed to have a bad effect under a strong sun. 

The heat from the sun is effective in melting off the hold which 
anchor ice has on the bed of a river. A common sight in the early 
morning after a clear, cold night, when the sun rises, is the appearance 
of masses of anchor ice. These rise and float down with the current 
in great quantity. Boatmen are very careful when crossing a river not 
to go when these masses are rising, from the danger of being sur- 
rounded and caught in a mass of anchor ice, and carried down stream 
into the rapids. 

Anchor ice rarely forms under a layer of surface ice. It forms on 
dark rocks more readily than on light ones, which is in accord with 
what we know in regard to the more copious radiation of heat from 
dark surfaces. Anchor ice never forms under a cloudy sky by day or 
night, no matter how severe the weather, but it forme very rapidly 
under a clear sky at night. It is readily melted off under a bright sun. 
It is built up rapidly during very cold weather by the entangled masses 
of frazil crystals carried in the flowing Water. 

The growth of anchor ice is very beautiful resembling arborescent 
forms and the weeds of summer. So hard and thick does it become that 
it is often difficult to thrust a sounding-rod through it. It is very 
granular in structure, .°s is shown by the examination of the masses 
which rise to the surface. Through clear Water the ice appears to have 

17 



2S8 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

long tentacles rising up out of the mass. It often has immense power 
in lifting rocks and boulders up bodily, and many of these are carried 
down stream attached to irregular masses of ice. The spongy character 
of adhering frazil crystals causes them to accumulate slime and infusorial 
growths from the water. A very characteristic colour of these masses 
is brown. When melted in a vessel the slime settles to the bottom, when 
it is seen to be of a very fine structure, consisting probably largely of 
infusorial growth. 

Fig. 6 shows a photograph of anchor ice formed in a rapid where, 
in spite of the swift currents, the ice has formed on the rocks and is 
building up out of the water. This was the beginning of an ice-bridge 
which eventually completely blocked the rapid at this point. In Fig. 8 
I show a diagram illustrative of the three forms of ice. 

Ice Conditions at Long Sault as Affected by the Development of Power 

An inspection of the map which I have prepared illustrating the 
ice conditions as they exist in an average winter in the vicinity of the 
Long Sault rapids will show the relatively large proportion of the river 
which remains permanently open throughout the winter. 

From Prescott to Goose-neck island we have 18 '1 sq. miles of open 
water and 13 '4 sq. miles of ice-covered water. This gives 38 per cent, 
of the total river area open. From Goose-neck island to Cornwall we 
find 5 ■83.sq. miles open and 15 sq. miles covered which includes the great 
ice pack. There is, therefore, over 28 per cent, of open water in this 
section of the river. All of this open water is productive of great 
quantities of frazil and anchor ice throughout the entire winter. 

At the present time, Nature constructs an ice dam in the vicinity 
of Cornwall at a place where the natural conditions are favourable to 
the minimising of the effect of the ice pack. In the spring, when dis- 
integration takes place, this mass of ice is free to move out into the broad 
expanse of lake St. Francis. No narrow channel blocks the way for the 
early opening of the river for navigation. The upheavals caused in 
other parts of the river when the narrow parts of the waterway become 
choked with ice in the spring, indicate what effect the introduction of 
a permanent dam to replace the present ice-hridge would have. The 
construction of the proposed dams now under consideration would 
merely carry the ice packs further back into the narrow parts of the 
river, where the first rush of frazil ice in the autumn would be unable to 
distribute over the wide area of lake St. Francis. It is true that 
the raising of the water level by the proposed dams Would drown out 
the main rapids, but this Would in no way affect the swift currents 
above, and would not prevent the winter's accumulation of frazil and 
anchor ice, over at least 10 square miles of open water, from forming 







Z 







So 



" 7. 









ICE CONDITIONS ON THE ST. LAWRENCE 359 

an ice pack back of the dams. In the spring, all this ice would be held 
back by the dams until it melted in April, and might seriously delay 
the opening of navigation through these waters. 

No man can determine the serious consequences which might result 
from introducing these artificial dams in the narrow portions of the 
river with such an extent of open water above. Nature asserts herself 
with irresistible force when the struggle between water and ice takes 
place in so mighty a river as the St. Lawrence. 




APPENDIX XXVI 



ICE JAMS 

In the St. Lawrence River Between Morrisburg and Cornwall, 
Based on Surveys Made to Locate and Determine the 
Elevation of Flood Marks Along the River* 

I. Dates of Unusual Ice Jams and Floods 

THE only floods caused by ice jams between Croil island and Morris- 
burg were those of 1840, 1879, 1887, 1895, 1898, 1901 and 1905. 
The flood of 1887 was the worst and that of 1905 the next. 

//. Surveys of Ice Floods 

In 1904 John R. Freeman directed a survey of ice conditions from 
Cornwall to the upper end of Long Sault island. In 1907, J. W. Rickey 
directed a similar survey, from the point where Mr. Freeman left ofif, 
to Morrisburg. The results of these surveys are shown on Drawings 
G-8-X and A-84-M.t The following statements were made by the 
persons mentioned, to C. W. Judsou who executed this latter survey. 

Benj. Nichols, U.S. Customs Officer at Louisville Landing, 
states that until recently nearly all ice gorges have been caused by 
bays being thrown from Croil island to the north shore near Farran 
Point. This has been done after a bridge has formed on the south 
side of Croil island, either by the bay between McLoud point and 
Duval point swinging from natural causes, or having been swung 
by people living near by. 

Twenty or twenty-five years ago a state law was enacted mak- 
ing it a misdemeanor to swing an ice-bridge at above points. 
There is now a special deputy appointed each winter, by the 
sheriff of St. Lawrence county, to prevent the swinging of an 
ice-bridge. 

Mr. Nichols says that these deputies are chosen from people 
residing along the river near these points, to whom a bridge would 
give certain advantages, and, as bridges are always swung during 
the night, the deputies have never yet been known to prevent 
their being thrown across. 

Mr. Cook, collector of Canadian Customs at Aultsville, Ont., 
says that nine ice jams out of ten are formed by a bridge between 

* This is an ex parte statement by J. W. Rickey, Chief Engineer of the Long 
Sault Development Company, the applicants for permission to dam the Long Sault. 
t Drawings not reproduced. 




D 

o 

o 



o s 



< < 



H 


NJ 


O 


<! 


< 


K 


K 1^ 


Q 


H 


< 


K 


fcj 


r^ 



ICE JAMS IN THE ST. LAWBENCE— RICKEY 261 

the upper part of Croil island and the north shore, and that nearly 
all of these are caused by bays being thrown from the Croil Island 
side. 

Mr. Cook states that he knows the bridge of 1887, which 
caused the highest water known between Aultsville and Morris- 
burg, was thrown by residents along the river near above point; 
and that nearly all, if not all, of the smaller ice jams originated in 
a similar way. 

Chas. Whittaker, lock-master at Morrisburg, Ont., states 
that he has lived at Morrisburg nearly all his life, and that, as a rule, 
nearly all ice jams have been caused by throwing bays from Croil 
island to the main shore. 

There may have been exceptions to the above, but none to 
Mr. Whittaker's knowledge. 

Ghas. Stata, lock-master at Farran Point, Ont., says that 
no ice-bridges have been thrown across at this point for fifteen 
years. 

The bridges of 1887 and 1905 were caused by Brown Bay 
ice swinging out and catching on point just below. 

Ice makes out from both sides here, so that the main channel 
seems no wider than a good sized creek, and bays coming down 
from above very often hold for a time. 

Brown Bay ice usually goes out as often as every week during 
the winter — ^this is caused by the rise and fall of the water due to 
variable winds. (The last above statement is not corroborated. 
G. W. J.) 

If the weather is very cold, ice forms in the bay of sufficient 
thickness to hold and form a bridge when it swings against the 
point. 

There was very little trouble here until the canal was enlarged. 
This has so changed the current that the ice at a point below the 
bay, just east of Farran Point, makes out much farther than 
formerly, thus causing a bridge to form. 

A bridge is often caused by Whalen Bay ice, also the ice of 
the bay just below Sturgeon shoal, swinging and lodging at the 
head of Farran Point canal. This also has only happened since the 
canal has been enlarged. 

Mr. Jerry Wilson, 3i miles west of Louisville Landing states 
that his grandfather, Samuel Warner, moved here about 1790 to 
1795. Samuel Warner told Mr. Wilson that the only ice-bridge 
between the time he moved there and 1879, was a temporary one 
in 1840. 

Mr. Geo. W. Lawrence, who lives just west of Mr. Wilson, 
says that there were, according to a written record which he has 
kept, ice jams in the St. Lawrence river in the winters of 1887, 
1895, 1898, 1901 and 1905. 

Mr. James Bradford states that his grandfather moved to 
Louisville Landing about 1805 and that he had heard his grand- 
father say repeatedly that the first serious ice jam or bridge 
occurred in 1879; that, prior to this date, the ice did not "take" 
opposite Croil island and above it. 



262 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

The authors of the above statements have all lived along the river 
for many years and are pre-eminently qualified to give an opinion in the 
matter. 

All floods that endanger Morrisburg are caused by the initial ice- 
bridge "taking" at GroU island and, from the above statements, it 
appears : 

(a) That nearly all the ice-bridges between Groil island and 
the main shore were artificially formed by the riverside inhabitants. 

(6) That the 1887 flood, the worst on record, was started 
artificially. _ - 

(c) That changes in the Farran Point canal have increased 
the chances of ice jams forming. 

777. Discharge of River in February, 1887 

The mean monthly discharge of the St. Lawrence in February, 
1887, was 250,500 second feet (vide Report U.S. Engineers, 1903, page 
2877). This February discharge has only been exceeded three times 
for the period 1860-1906, inclusive, namely:— 1865, 257,800 second 
feet; 1870, 262,000 second feet; 1886, 268,000 second feet. The 1887 
conditions present about as severe conditions as may be expected. 

IV. Profile of River 

The upper curve on Drawing E-14:6-M* shows the profile of the 
river surface from Morrisburg to Cornwall, at the crest of the flood in 
February, 1887; the lower curve shows the profile for open channel 
conditions, with a river discharge of 255,000 second feet which is about 
two per cent, more than the discharge in February, 1887. 

The upper curve on Drawing E-169-M* shows the profile of the 
river surface from Morrisburg to the head of Long Sault island, at the 
crest of the flood in February, 1905. The lower curve shows the river 
profile for 255,000 second-feet discharge, open channel conditions. The 
ice flood is not shown east of Long Sault island on this map because 
the ice flood survey between Cornwall and the head of Long Sault 
island was made in 1904. 

V. Ice Conditions in River, February 1887 

In February 1887, there were two icu jams in the river stretch above 
mentioned. The lower jam was caused by the annual congestion of fra- 
zil ice in lake St. Francis; the head of this jam was near the foot of the 
Long Sault and raised the water to elev. 200 at this point. At the foot 



* Drawing not reproduced. 




<1 



K 

Eh" 
H 
H 

w 
CO 

o 



3 

H 
O 



O 



H 



O 
H 21 



<i; 



o 

K 

K 
O 









ICE JAMS IN THE ST. LAWRENCE— RICKEY 263 

of Barnhart island the flood level was 30 feet above the normal, open- 
channel level; this flood level was from 5 to 10 feet higher than the 
ordinary annual flood. 

The upper jam extended from Croil island to Bradford point, a 
distance of 7 miles. It was started by swinging an ice-bridge, see par. 
II above. The river channel was blocked with ice as far as Weaver point 
but the water rose less than 4 feet above normal near the foot of the jam, 
on the south side of Croil island, while at Weaver poiat it rose only 6 
feet above normal. Between Weaver point and Bradford point the 
channel was so badly congested that the ice acted almost as a dam, 
raising the water over 16 feet above normal at Bradford point. From 
Bradford point to Morrisburg the channel was open in the centre, with 
ice in the bays along the shore. At Morrisburg the rise above normal 
was about 12 feet. 

The main river channel was open, except for border ice, from the 
foot of the upper jam, at Croil island, to the foot of the Long Sault. 
The rapids were practically obliterated by the backwater from the lower 
jam. Although the flood level was from 18 to 20 feet above normal 
at the site of the proposed upper dam, or at elev. 200, the backwater 
rise at lock 21 was less than four feet; and the lower end of Croil island, 
the backwater rise was less than two feet. 

It is a matter of history, that the main river channel north of Long 
Sault, never becomes congested with ice e ven when the backwater, caused 
by the Lake St. Francis ice jam, obliterates the rapids, thereby creating 
conditions essentially the same as will be created by the proposed 
dams. 

The South Sault channel was so badly congested that very little 
water was discharged through it. Practically all of the discharge of the 
river, about 250,000 second-feet, passed in the main channel north of 
Long Sault island, and south of Barnhart island. 

Little River channel was badly congested and discharged very little 
water. 

The extent of these jams is shown on drawing E-146-M.* 

VI. Conclusions from Above Facts 

From the above it follows that ice jams in lake St. Francis do not 
cause any serious backwater rise in the open channel of the main river, 
north of Long Sault island, even when the surface is raised to elev. 200 
at the Upper dam site. 

The flood at Morrisburg is caused primarily by the initial ice-bridges 
" taking " between Croil island and the main shores. These ice-bridges 



* Drawings not reproduced . 



264 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

are generally of artificial formation, and if broken up aoon after they 
"take," a jam will not be formed. 

If no ice jam forms above Croil island, a winter flood at Morrisburg 
is most improbable, if not impossible; this statement is based on the 
river conditions as they have existed for more than 100 years past. 

VII. Prevention of Ice Jartis in the South Sault Channel 

The St. Lawrence River Power Co., kept the South Sault channel 
open during the winters of 1903-1906 inclusive, even when northwest 
winds caused practically all of the ice in the entire river to pass down 
this channel. Before, and after the above date no attempt was made to 
keep this channel open, and every winter it was badly congested with ice 
jams. This shows conclusively, that it is practicable to keep the river 
channels open provided the work is undertaken with properly equipped 
crews. In like manner it will be possible to keep open the main river 
channel on each side of Croil island after the proposed dams are built, 
thereby removing all possibility of ice floods in Morrisburg for all future 
time. 

VIII. Effect of Proposed Dams on River Conditions 

If the proposed dams had existed during the 1887 flood, and the 
river had been maintained at the February 1887 level (viz. elev. 200) 
at the Upper dam site, the up-river condition would have been un- 
changed. The open river would have extended to a point opposite Croil 
island and the surface elevation would have been the same as it was 
during the flood. 

If the upper jam had been allowed to form, under the above con- 
ditions, and if it had been allowed to increase, the resulting flood would 
have been practically the same as existed in 1887. In brief, the exist- 
ence of the proposed dams during the 1887 flood, would not have altered 
conditions above them to an appreciable extent. The experience of four 
consecutive years in breaking up and preventing ice jams in the South 
Sault channel shows that similar methods, employed breaking the in- 
cipient jams at Croil island, would have prevented the 1887, 1905, and 
other floods. 

IX. The February, 1905 Flood 

The flood of February 1905, was caused in a manner much like that 
of 1887. The water did not rise as high as in 1887, but the upper 
ice jam extended from Croil island to Morrisburg and the jam was so 



ICE JAMS IN THE ST. LAWRENCE— RICKEY 266 

compact that teams crossed the river on the ice at many points. The 
profile of the 1905 flood is shown on drawing E-169-M.* 

The damage done by these floods is small. The riverside inhabi- 
tants know about them and do not build structures near the river. The 
greatest damage occurs in Morrisburg. 

Where the river roads, on both sides of the river, cross the streams 
that flow into the St. Lawrence, the bridges are but a few feet above 
the normal water level and when the river is in flood stage these bridges 
are impassable; the farmers in such cases are compelled to go back to 
the next road. 

No loss of life, due to the floods above mentioned, has ever 
occurred. 

X. Comparison of Present and Future Conditions 

Under existing conditions no one is interested in breaking up, 
or even preventing, ice jams opposite and above Croil island, and the 
repetition of the 1887 and 1905 floods at Morrisburg may occur any 
winter. It is not at all improbable that a flood whose effects will be 
far more disastrous than that of 1887 may occur. 

When the proposed dams are built it will be of great importance 
to the Power Companies from an operatiag standpoint, to keep the 
river free from congestion. Crews of men will be stationed at the 
critical points and the river will be patrolled and kept free from ice 
jams just as the South Sault channel has been maintained free and open 
by the St. Lawrence River Power Co. 

The construction of the proposed dams will not increase the danger 
of flood at Morrisburg but the operation of the power-houses, etc., will 
caU for the prevention of ice jams, and in this way the proposed works 
will reduce to a minimum the risk of flood not only at Morrisburg, but 
along the river front from Morrisburg to Farran Point. 



* Drawings not reproduced. 



APPENDIX XXVII 



REPORT 

On the Effect in Canadian Waters of a Power-House Built in 
THE Long Sault Channel* 

THE effect, in Canadian waters, of a power-house at the foot of the 
South Sault channel will be almost nil, after the development is 
completed. During the construction period, however, while the South 
channel is obstructed by a coffer dam, all the South channel discharge 
will be diverted to the North channel, and this diversion will raise 
the level slightly in this latter channel. 

The St. Lawrence is probably the best regulated large river in the 
world, and the variation of its discharge from the mean average is 
exceedingly small. The ratio of the mean flow to the extreme minimum 
is only 1.41, and the ratio of the mean flow to the extreme maximum is 
only 0.71. These ratios are unique and greatly simplify the case under 
consideration. 

The average discharge of the St. Lawrence river is about 255,000 
second-feet, at which stage about 48,500 second-feet, or 19 per cent, of 
the total flow passes through the South channel, and 81 per cent, flows 
through the North channel. When the total river discharge is less than 
255,000 second-feet, proportional discharge in the South channel falls 
slightly below 19 per cent., and vice versa. 

As long as the discharge through the proposed South Sault power- 
house is the same as would have occurred under present natural con- 
ditions, for the varying river stages, it will have no appreciable effect 
upon the levels or flow in the North channel. Any considerable change 
in the proportional discharge through the South Sault will affect the 
levels and discharge in the North channel to some extent, and the 
effect of such change on navigation is to be determined. 

The minimum depth on the sill of lock 21 of the Cornwall canal 
is 14 feet and it is axiomatic that any greater depth, within reasonable 
limits, is beneficial to navigation, and it is also true that a depth less 
than 14 feet should be prevented if possible. This applies only to the 
navigation season, May to November, inclusive. During the winter 
season, December to April, inclusive, the depth on the sill at lock 21 



* This is an ex parte statement by J. W. Rickey, Chief Engineer of the Long 
Sault Development Company, the applicants for permission to dam the Long Sault 



CONDITIONS ALONG ST. LAWRENCE 207 

is immaterial, so long as sufficient water is available for supplying the 
power-plants along the Cornwall canal. 

In determining the effect of the South Sault power-house, the 
following items must be considered : 

/. Present Conditions Along River St. Lawrence 

(a) Winter season 
(6) Navigation season 

77. Conditions During Construction 

(o) Winter season 
(6) Navigation season 

777. Permanent Future Conditions 

(a) Winter season 

1. Power-house not in operation 

2. Power-house in operation 
(6) Navigation season 

1. Power-house not in operation 

2. Power-house in operation 

IV. Ice Conditions in General 

"Winter Season" means December to April, inclusive; 
" Navigation Season " means May to November, inclusive. 

This list comprises the possible combinations and the resulting 
conditions will be considered seriatim. 

I. Present Conditions Along River St. Lawrence 

(a) Winter Season: 

Every winter the South Sault channel becomes so badly con- 
gested by ice jams that the entire flow of water, practically speaking, 
is shut off and all the water in the river flows through the North Sault 
channel. The only exception to this occurs when these ice jams in the 
South channel are prevented by the St. Lawrence River Power Company, 
and, in such cases, the discharge through the South Sault channel 
approximates the normal discharge, or is practically 19 per cent, of the 
total discharge of the St. Lawrence. 

The formation of these ice jams causes no damage to property, 
other than interfering with the supply of water to the Massena Power 
canal, and the diversion of the water from the south to the north channel 
occurs without loss or damage of any kind whatsoever. So far as 
water supply for power along the Cornwall canal is concerned, it is 
absolutely immaterial whether the South Sault channel is entirely free 
and open or entirely dammed by ice jams. 



268 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

(Jb) Navigation Season: 

The ice jams in the South channel pass away about April 1st, and, 
from this date until they form again, about January 1st, the South Sault 
channel passes approximately 19 per cent, of the total river discharge. 
The mean discharge of the river at this point is about 255,000 second- 
feet; at this stage the depth on the sill at lock 21 in the Cornwall canal 
is about 16.40 feet, or 2.40 feet more than the minimum of 14 feet depth 
in the St. Lawrence canals. The discharge is about 182,000 second-feet 
when the depth of the sill of lock 21 is 14"0 feet. For the period 1849 
to 1897 inclusive, the least depth on the sill of the new lock 21, (had 
this lock been in existence during the entire period) would have been 
13"75 feet, at which stage the South Sault channel discharged somewhat 
less than 19 per cent, of the total river flow. Likewise, the greatest 
depth on the sill at lock 21 would have been 19'34 feet, and the South 
channel passed somewhat more than 19 per cent, of the total river flow. 
The exact variation from 19 per cent, is not known, but it is conservative 
to say that the difi'erence is not great in either direction. The effect 
of this difference is unimportant, on account of the small ratio of the 
difference to the total discharge and the large increment of discharge 
per foot of increase of river surface elevation at lock 21. 

//. Conditions During Construction 

(a) Winter Season: 

During the construction of the South Sault power-house, a tem- 
porary coffer dam will be built across the South channel, a short distance 
below the entrance to the Massena canal. This coffer dam will divert to 
the North channel, all of the water that would otherwise flow through 
the South channel. During the winter season this will practically repro- 
duce the conditions that occurred almost annually from times pre- 
historic, when the South channel has been dammed by ice jams and the 
entire river has flowed in the North channel. 

As previously stated, such conditions cause no damage whatsoever 
to property, and it follows that the construction of a coffer dam across 
the South channel will cause no material change in the usual North 
channel winter conditions, either as regards river levels or volume of 
water. 

(6) Navigation Season : 

The diversion to the North channel, of all the water that now flows, 
through the South channel, will raise the level at lock 21 to a height that 
corresponds to a river stage that is about 19 per cent, greater than oc- 
curs under existing conditions. 

Thus, with the South channel coffer dammed and a mean river dis- 
charge of 250,000 second-feet, the level at lock 21 will be the same as 



CONDITIONS ALONG ST. LAWRENCE 269 

would occur, under existing conditions, with a total river discharge of 
1-19 X 250,000, or about 297,500 second-feet. The gauge at lock 21 
reads 16'25 feet for a mean discharge of 250,000 second-feet, under pre- 
sent conditions, and it will read 1770 feet at the same stage, with a 
coffer dam across the South Sault channel. The difference is only 
about 1 foot 5 inches, a negligible increase, and yet one that will assist 
boats to a slight degree in leaving and entering the lock. 

Sheet 3* shows graphically the highest and the lowest water on the 
upper sill of lock 21 for the navigation season. May to November inclu- 
sive, and from 1849 to 1909 inclusive. This record covers a period of 60 
consecutive years and it is safe to assume that it shows practically the 
extremes that will occur in the future. The data on sheets 2 and 3* 
enable one to predict the effect, at lock 21, of a coffer dam across the 
South channel for all river stages. 

The extreme daily minimum depth on the upper sill of lock 21 
occurred in 1895, when the gauge reading was 13'75 feet, (= 733 feet, 
old lock datum) and the discharge was 175,000 second-feet. Had there 
been a coffer dam across the South channel, this minimum depth would 
have been increased to 150 feet. 

The maximum daily depth occurred in 1862 and 1886, and was 
19-34 feet, ( = 12-92 feet, old lock datum) with a discharge of 358,000 
aecond-feet. The South channel coffer dam would have raised the level 
to 21-0 feet on the sill of lock 21, or a rise of 1 foot 8 inches higher 
than actually occurred. Since the Chicago Drainage canal is diverting 
from the St. Lawrence watershed about 10,000 second-feet, thereby 
actually lowering the river level at lock 21 about 0-2 foot at the maxi- 
mum stage, the estimates are conservative. 

The above computations are based on United States Government 
data. 

///. Permanent Future Conditions 

(a) 1 Winter Season — Power-House not in Operation: 
After the South Sault power house is built, and as long as it is not 
in operation, the conditions in the North channel will be practically 
the same as have obtained in the past almost every winter, when ice jams 
in the South channel have diverted all of the water to the North channel 
as described in paragraph II (a) , above. 

(a) 2 Winter Season — Power-House in Operation : 
When the power-house is in operation the water will merely be 
passed through the turbines instead of flowing freely down the South 



* Not reproduced. 



270 COMMISSION OF OONSBRVATION 

channel as it does when, occasionally, ice jams do not obstruct and dam 
this channel, or the channel is kept free and open by the St. Lawrence 
River Power Company, as was done in the winters of 1905, 1906 and 
1909. 

Such power-house operation will therefore only produce eflFects in the 
North channel that have happened in the past and will happen in the 
future with the South channel in its natural condition. The proposed 
power-house will, therefore, not alter present winter conditions to any 
appreciable extent. 

(6) 1 Navigation Season — Power-House not in operation: 

Adjacent to the proposed power-house will be built a set of large 
sluice gates capable of discharging upwards of 60,000 second-feet. The 
power-house will only be shut down at infrequent intervals and any part 
of the water that would otherwise flow through the South channel can 
be diverted, as desired, to the North channel, or the entire volume of 
water that would flow through the South channel, in its natural condi- 
tion, can there be discharged under the future conditions. 

It is thus evident that as long as the power-house is not in operation 
the proposed development in the South channel wUl, in effect, provide 
a huge valve to divert the South Sault channel flow to the North, or 
to pass it through the South channel, or to divide it between the two as 
may be desired. 

(6) 2 Navigation Season — Power-House in Operation : 

During the navigation season, when the proposed power-house is 
in operation, the water that otherwise would have passed through the 
South channel in its natural state, will be discharged through the 
turbines for generating electrical power. Any excess water not used for 
power may either be automatically diverted to the North channel or it 
may be passed through the sluice gates at the power-house. 

The construction and operation of a power-house in the South 
channel will cause no materiar change in the volume or height of the 
water* in the main channel north of Long Sault island, which channel 
is the International channel. 

Finally, the operation of the proposed South Sault power-house 
will not affect, to any appreciable extent, the amount of water east of 
Long Sault island, nor will it affect, in the slightest degree, the amount 
of water in the river east of Barnhart island. 



* The plans eubmitted by the Long Sault Company indicate their intention to 
enlarge the South Sault channel, and thus enable them to divert to it part of the 
flow that would normally pass down the North Sault. — A.V.W. 



CONDITIONS ALONG ST. LAWRENCE 271 

IV. Ice Conditions in General 

It is well known that the South Sault channel has often been 
dammed by ice jams at the same time that the Farran Point channel 
has been similarly obstructed, so that all of the ice in the river passed 
through the Big Sny and North channels. This occurred notably in the 
years 1887, 1905 and 1907. No property damage whatsoever was 
occasioned in the channel north of Long Sault island during such con- 
gestions. It is also an historical fact that not since the year 1795 has 
there been any ice congestion in the North Sault channel, and there 
has probably not been an ice jam in this channel for a very much 
longer period of time. 

As previously stated, the South Sault power-house will cause 
winter conditions in the North channel practically the same as those 
caused by an ice jam in the South channel at present, but with this 
exception: after the power-house is built it will be desirable from an 
operating standpoint to keep the Farran Point channel free from ice 
jams, so as to reduce the amount of ice that would otherwise float past 
the South Channel inlet in entering the Big Sny. Past experience in 
fighting ice in the South channel shows that this can be done, and if 
there is no ice jam in the Farran Point channel, an ice-bridge west of 
Groil island is almost, if not quite, an impossible occurrence, and to this 
extent, an ice flood at Morrisburg will be indirectly prevented, by the 
owners of the South Sault power-house keeping free from congestion 
Farran Point channel. 

SUMMARY 

Under Existing Conditions 

In winter, all of the water in the river flows through the North 
channel, almost every year, and no damage results. 

In summer, about 19 per cent, of the flow passes through the South 
channel and 81 per cent, through the North channel. 

During the Construction Period 

In winter, the coffer dam across the South channel will practically 
reproduce existing winter conditions in the North chaimel and no damage 
will result. 

In summer, the South Sault coffer dam will raise the level in the 
North channel at lock 21 from a minimum of 1 foot 3 inches to a 
maximum of 1 foot 8 inches, higher than would occur under the natural 
existing conditions in the South channel. 



272 GOMSnSSION OF CONSERVATION 

After the Power-House is Built 

In winter, with the power-house not in operation, the conditions in 
the North channel will be practicdly the same as have obtained almost 
every year in the past under existing natural conditions in the South 
channel. 

With the power-house in operation, the conditions in the North 
channel will be the same as have obtained in the past when the South 
channel was not obstructed by ice jams. 

In summer, with the power-house not in operation, the flow of 
water in the South channel may be passed through the sluice gates 
adjoining the power-house, thus not affecting the amount of water or 
the level in the North channel appreciably, or the entire flow may, if 
desired, to assist navigation, be diverted to the North channel. 

In the summer, with the power-house in operation, the water that 
would have passed through the South channel in its natural existing 
condition will all be discharged through the turbines, or partly through 
the turbines and partly through the sluice gates, or, if desired, for the 
purpose of assisting navigation, the sluice gates may be closed and the 
water not required for power will automatically be diverted to the 
North channel. 

The operation of a power-house in the South Sault channel will not 
interfere with, or alter the amount of water or change the river levels 
east of Long Sault island. 

Ice Conditions in General 

Ice jams will be prevented in the Farran Point channel and this 
will make the occasional ice floods at Morrisburg almost, if not quite, 
impossible. 

Massena, N.Y., Sept. 29, 1910. 



APPENDIX XXVin 



CORRESPONDENCE 

Contributed by Mr. J. Wesley Allison of Morrisburg, Ontario, 
setting forth his reasons, in common with those of certain 
Other Interests, for Opposing the Project to Dam the St. 
Lawrence at the Long Sault Rapids 

Washington, D.C., February 13, 1911 
Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, 

Premier of Canada, 

Ottawa, Ontario, Canada 
Dear Sir Wilfrid: 

I beg leave to invite your attention from the standpoint of Canadian 
interests, to the proposal of the Long Sault Development Company to 
dam the St. Lawrence river and utilize and control for all time its total 
500,000 (or 1,000,000) horse-power. 

Their project, as now disclosed, involves four power-houses and 
two dams; three of these power-houses will be on the American side of 
the International boundary line. The dam at the head of the Long 
Sault rapids will be, or can easily be wholly on the American side and 
the dam between Barnhart island and Canada will be partly below, 
and partly above the boundary line. The Bill, as at first introduced 
in the House of Representatives, and upon which we were heard for five 
days before the Rivers and Harbours Committee, contained a provision 
that required the approval of Canada before its provisions should become 
operative. This Bill was referred to the International Waterways Com- 
mission and while the Canadian section declined to report, the American 
section reported favourably upon the Bill, but recommended a more 
specific provision requiring the approval of the Canadian Government. 
Notwithstanding all this, a new Bill has been introduced, and was 
referred to the same Committee, which, without giving us an oppor- 
tunity to be heard, reported it favourably to the House. 

This Bill does not contain any provisions requiring the approval 
of Canada, and expressly authorizes the Company to proceed with its 
work south of the boundary without Canada's approval; and it is now 
conceded that such is the intention. This purpose is insisted upon, 
although attention has been vigorously called to the fact that such acts 
would entirely disregard the rights of Canada, both on principles of 
general international law and comity, and the provisions of the Ash- 

18 



274 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

burton Treaty which require each country to keep the rivers at this point 
equally free and open for vessels of each country. Nearly 95 per cent, 
of the water in the St. Lawrence river now flows through the Long Sault 
rapids and the South Sault channel. This shows how pronounced will 
be the disturbance of material conditions if the Company should 
exercise the powers that will be conferred upon it, if the pending Bill 
should become a law. While the Company is seeking authority to 
control practically the whole flow of the river and proposes in any 
event to develop three-fourths of the power on the American side, there 
is nothing in the proposed legislation that requires them to deliver any 
power on the Canadian side. 

All of these conditions present a situation which in my judgment 
calls for the immediate and serious, attention of the Canadian Govern- 
ment for the protection of Canadian interests. The waterway being 
common and international in its character, no change can be made in 
its natural conditions by either country that will not affect the other 
country having the same common and Undivided right to the use of the 
water; when such changes are proposed by one country, the other 
country has the right to and should be heard before any change is made. 
No change should be made except with the consent of each party 
interested. 

The Right Honourable James Bryce, the British Ambassador to 
the United States, has been fully advised of the situation, and I take 
great pleasure in saying that he has taken a dignified and intelligent 
interest in the matter in the line of protection of Canadian interests. 
He has received us with great courtesy and treats us with the greatest 
consideration. If he is properly supported by the Canadian Govern- 
ment, I do not hesitate to say, that I think he will be able to cause 
such delay upon the part of Congress as will enable the submission of 
the whole question to the new International Waterways Commission. 

In that event, if the project is authorized, it will, in my judgment, 
be authorized subject to the approval of both countries. If you desire 
further information on any particular question in the Act, I should be 
very glad to advise you fully. 

With kindest personal regards, I am 

Yours faithfully, 

(Sgd.) J. WESLEY ALLISON 



CORRESPONDENCE BY J. WESLEY ALLISON 275 

Washington, February 13, 1911 
Dr. J. D. Reid, M.P., 
House of Commons, 
Ottawa, Canada. 

Dear Dr. Reid: 

I am taking the liberty of writing you at length, advising you of 
the position I have taken in opposing the Long Sault Development 
Company's Bill, now pendirg in both Houses here. 

An investigation of the Bills pending in the interest of the Long 
Sault Development Company discloses the fact that the Company is 
endeavouring to get legislation that will enable them to develop power 
south of the International Boundary Kne, entirely independent of and 
without the consent of the Canadian Government. The original Malby 
Bill, introduced December 14, 1909, contained a provision that the 
authority thereby vested in the Company would iiot be operative, until 
the consent to the construction of the dams, canals and locks and other 
works by the proper authorities of the United States of America and the 
Dominion of Canada was obtained. This Bill was submitted to General 
O. H. Ernst, the chairman of the American section of the International 
Waterways Commission, who has devoted about six years to the con- 
sideration of this great International waterways, for his opinion. He, 
with the other members of the American section, joined in the opinion 
that the co-operation of the two Governments was essential and neces- 
sary and recommended a section to be attached to the Malby Bill, for 
the purpose of accomplishing that result, reading as follows: 

" This Act shall not become operative until the Government 
of the Dominion of Canada shall signify to the Secretary of State 
of the United States its consent to the construction of such dam 
and other structures; provided, that if said consent be not given 
within two years from the date of this Act, then this Act shall be 
null and void." 

Notwithstanding this clause in the original Malby Bill and 
this specific recommendation of the American section of the Interna- 
tional Waterways Commission, the Bill finally reported by the Rivers 
and Harbours Committee and the Bill now pending in the Senate, both 
being identical — entirely omits any provision requiring the consent of 
the Dominion of Canada. It does contain a section which provides that 
the Long Sault Development Company shall be subject to the provisions 
of the treaty between the United States and Great Britain relative to 
boundary waters, proclaimed May 13, 1910. 

An examination of the treaty discloses the interesting fact that 
article IV which relates to dams, is subject to approval in accordance 
with the provisions of article VIII. Article VIII provides that a ma- 



276 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

jority of the commissioners shall have power to render a decision. It 
further, provides that, in case the Gommission is evenly divided separate 
reports are to be made by the Commissioners on each side to their own 
Government and in that case, the Governments are to endeavour to 
reach an agreement. But, it is obvious that, if they do not agree, no 
result is reached, so that if the dams proposed to be built by the Long 
Sault Development Company are not approved by a majority of the 
Gommission then, in so far as the International Waterways Commission 
is concerned, the situation of the Company is not in the slightest degree 
changed, because the provisions of the treaty with reference to the ap- 
proval of the commissioners will have been exhausted without any 
definite result. 

The pending Bill evidently anticipated this situation, because it 
not only omits all provisions requiring the approval of the Dominion of 
Canada to the construction of the dams, but expressly provides that the 
company is "authorized to construct, maintain and operate for naviga- 
tion, water-power and other purposes for a period of ninety-nine years, 
a dam or dams in so much of the St. Lawrence river as lies south of the 
International Boundary line between the United States of America and 
the Dominion of Canada near Long Sault, Barnhart and Sheek islands, 
either independently or in connection with like works now erected or 
to be erected in so much of said river as lies north of said International 
Boundary line." 

It discloses the specific and deliberate purpose of authorizing the 
Long Sault Development Company to build its dams south of the Inter- 
national Boundary line without the consent or approval of the Dominion 
of Canada. 

I strongly urge upon you to lay before Parliament the above facts, 
and oblige, 

Yours very truly, 

J. WESLEY ALLISON 

Washington, D.C., Aug. 2, 1912 
Editor Ogdensburg News, 

Ogdensburg, N.Y. 
My Dear Sir: 

The Montreal Star pubHshes, with conspicuous headlines, under 
date of July 13, a special from Brockville, which outlines with con- 
siderable detail, engineering plans for damming the Long Sault, the 
claim being, that by these new and improved plans which have been 
in preparation for the past two years all objections to this work by the 
Canadian and United States Governments are completely obviated. 

The article is evidently designed to mould public sentiment in 
favour of the damming project, and to create the impression that these 



CORRESPONDENCE BY J. WESLEY ALLISON 277 

new plans have been submitted to and received favourable consideration 
by a joint board of some description. Nothing could be further from 
the truth. If any new plans of any kind have been devised by those 
interested in this project, such plans have not been brought to the 
official notice of either of the Governments concerned, and, of course, 
it is perfectly well known that under the treaty between the two Govern- 
ments in regard to navigation on the St. Lawrence, consent of both 
Governments would be necessary to the execution of any project for 
damming the river. 

By those in a position to know, it is affirmed that no plan can be 
Worked out which will obviate the danger of ice jams and the enormous 
destruction of private property incident thereto. The whole project 
is based on a ruthless disregard of private rights and individual owner- 
ship, for the benefit of corporate greed and wealth. The project never 
has received the approval of the American Government and there is 
little likelihood that it ever will. 

The Bill introduced in the House of Representatives by the late 
Congressman Malby, two years ago, was defeated then, when public 
sentiment on the subject of water-power had not been aroused. Since 
that time there has been a steady growth of sentiment in the American 
House of Representatives in favour of conservation of water-power by 
the Government and against any granting of rights or franchises therein 
to individuals or corporations. This has been signally illustrated during 
the past two weeks of the present session of Congress — a biU granting 
water-power rights in a number of smaller streams having been defeated 
by an overwhelming vote — and it is certain that the policy of Congress 
will be to grant no rights of this kind, until some general policy has been 
formulated on the subject. If any project is ever worked out for utilizing 
the enormous power on the St. Lawrence river, nothing is more certain 
than that the Canadian and United States Governments will not make 
this power subject to private ownership, but will utilize it for the benefit 
of the people of both countries. 

No amount of newspaper exploitation can ever create a sentiment 
in either country in favour of the utilization of this power for the enrich- 
ment of individuals or private corporations at the expense of the people 
of either country. 

If desired, I can give you more complete information in regard to 
this question. 

Yours very truly, 

J. WESLEY ALLISON 



APPENDIX XXIX 



PROTEST OF THE MONTREAL BOARD OF TRADE 

To The Right Honourable, 

Sir Wilfrid Laurier, G.C.M.G., 

Premier of the Dominion of Canada 

THE MEMORIAL OF THE COUNCIL OF THE MONTREAL 
BOARD OF TRADE HUMBLY SHEWETH 

That your Memorialists ha\e recently appeared before the Inter- 
national Waterways Commission, and urged their objections to the 
application of the St. Lawrence Power Go. and the Long Sault Develop- 
ment Co. for permission to dam the St. Lawience river at Cornwall, 
from the Canadian side to the American side. 

That on that occasion the Canadian Chairman of the Commission 
said, (see page 147 of the Minutes of the meeting of the Comrnission held 
at Toronto 8th and 9th February) ,* that the question before the Water- 
ways Commission was whether it is possible without interference with 
the interests of navigation, to erect a dam, or dams, in the St. Lawrence 
at this point. 

That your Memorialists believe that there is a far more important 
issue to be decided than that referred to the International Waterways 
Commission, and one that your Government alone can pronounce upon, 
and for that reason your Memorialists address themselves to you. 

That your Memorialists consider it to be against the interests of 
Canada that any private or alien corporation should now, or hereafter, 
be allowed to acquire a lien on the St. Lawrence river, for, did such lien 
exist, the Dominion Government, in developing our great water route, 
Would have to deal with vested interests, some of which would be pro- 
tected by the Government of the United States, which country is, and 
always will be, Canada's great trade competitor, and is, therefore, likely 
as a matter of policy to avail itself of any opportunity to hamper Cana- 
dian navigation interests. 

That while in the future it may become necessary to canalize the 
St. Lawrence, and to construct dams at various points therein, thereby 
wresting large water-powers, your Memorialists are strongly of opinion 
that navigation interests should ever be paramount, and the provision 
of power a secondary consideration, and, further, that such dams should. 



*See page 346. 



PROTEST OF THE MONTREAL BOARD OF TRADE 279 

so far as Canada is concerned, be Government works, and that the power 
works in Canada created by such dams should be owned, or at least 
controlled, by the Dominion Government. 

That, in conclusion, your Memorialists beg to most heartily endorse 
the following findings of the Dominion Government Conservation Com- 
mission in connection with this matter. 

"The time will undoubtedly arrive in the history of Canada 
when deeper navigation upon the St. Lawrence will require to be 
provided for by the Canadian Government. Should the works 
proposed by the St. Lawrence Power Co. be constructed, the 
Government will no longer have a free hand in undertaking such an 
enterprise. The vested rights of the Company would require to 
be considered, or the Government would require to expropriate 
such works, pasang an enormous sum, by way of damages. More- 
over, it is not clear that expropriation could be had on any terms. 
The international character of the works might prove an insuper- 
able bar, in which case the Canadian Government would be without 
remedy, and the improvement of navigation could not be effected. 

"The proposition, as before us, contemplates giving away 
this valuable asset without any substantial consideration, to a 
foreign company for its private financial advantage, and the obvious 
conclusion from the facts above recited seems to be the plain duty 
of Canada is to maintain her rights of ownership and jurisdiction 
absolutely unimpaired and untramelled." 
The whole respectfully submitted. 

(sgd.) GEORGE L. CAINS 

President 

(sgd.) GEO. HADRILL 

Secretary 

Signed on behalf of the Council of the Montreal Board of Trade, 
Montreal, 8th March, 1910. 



APPENDIX XXX 



PROCEEDINGS 

At Public Hearing, held before the International Waterways 
Commission, regarding the Proposal of the St. Lawrence 
Power Company and Long Sault Development Company, to 
Dam the St. Lawrence River at the Long Sault Rapids 

Toronto, Tuesday, Feby. 8, 1910 
The Commission met in the Queen's Hotel at 12 o'clock 

Present: Canadian Section: 

George C. Gibbons, Esq., K.C., Chairman 
W. J. Stewart, Esq., C.E. 
H. Langlois, Secretary 

American , Section : 

Brig-Gen. Ernst, Chairman 
George D. Clinton, Esq. 
Prof. E. E. Haskell ' 

W. Edward Wilson, Secretary 

The following deputations were present : 

Long Sault Development Company: 

Leighton McCarthy, K.C., Counsel 

J. W. Rickey, C.E. 

Henry Holgate, C.E. 

H. G. Kelley, G. E. 
St. Lawrence Power Company: 

Leighton McCarthy, K.C., Counsel 

Geo. G. Foster, K.C. 

Richelieu & Ontario Navigation Company : 

R. C. Smith, K.C, Counsel 

G. J. Smith, Manager 
St. Lawrence and Chicago Steam Navigation Company: 

A. A. Wright, Superintendent 
Ontario Government: 

Hon. Adam Beck, Minister of Power 

Irwin Hilliard, K.C, Counsel 



HEARING BEFORE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION 281 

Commission of Conservation, Canada: 

James White, Secretary 
Dominion Marine Association : 

Francis King, Secretary, Kingston 
Lake Freight Association : 

Frank Plummer, President 
Shipping Federation: 

Francis E.. Meredith, K.G., Counsel 
Montreal : 

Eugene Lafleur, K.C., representing Montreal Board of Trade 

John Kennedy, C.E., Engineer Harbour Commission 

Lawrence Henderson, General Manager, Montreal Transporta- 
tion Company 

T. J. Coonan 

Arthur V. Davis 
Toronto Board of Trade : 

W. J. Gage, President 

F. G. Morley, Secretary 

Barlow Cumberland 
Prescott : 

F. S. Evanson, Mayor 
J. K. Dowsley 

I. P. Wiser 
Massena, N.Y. : 

Capt. W. W. Cline 
Beockville : 

A. M. Patterson, Mayor 

W. C. Maclaren, President, Board of Trade 

Hugh. A. Stewart, K.C. 

James A. Hutcheson, K.C, Town Solicitor 

W. S. Buell 

W. H. Davis 

J. Webster 

J. A. Mackenzie 

Dr. S. Gowan 

W. H. Osborne 

W. E. Brough 

D. W. Downey 

C. S. Consitt 

A. T. Wilgress 

G. Barclay 
R. Bowie 

O. K. Eraser 
W. H. Kyle 



282 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

G. Ross 

W. B. Thomson 
C. T. Wilkinson 

W. Shearer, Secretary, Board of Trade 
Hon. Daniel Derbyshire, Senator 
Cornwall : 

Robert A. Pringle, K.C., representing town of Cornwall and 

Board of Trade 
P. E. Campbell,* President and General Manager, Montreal & 

Cornwall Navigation Co. 

MOREISBURG : 

Geo. H. Watson, K.C., representing Morrisburg, Williamsburg, 

Matilda and Osnabruek 
W. C. Connolly 

Chairman Gibbons, having adjourned the meeting until 2 o'clock, 
on account of the absence of Brig-Gen. Ernst and Prof. Haskell, 
resumed the Chair at 2 o'clock. 

Chairman Gibbons: I am exceedingly sorry that owing to the 
lateness of the trains from New York and Washington two of the 
American Commissioners — General Ernst, Chairman of the American 
Section, and Professor Haskell — may not be able to reach Toronto till 
4.30. After consultation with the other member of the American 
Section, Mr. Clinton, it has been thought better to proceed, on account 
of the large number of people who have come here. What is said by the 
gentlemen will be taken down in full in shorthand, and of course the Com- 
missioners who are not here will have the benefit of these remarks. The 
importance of the question which is to come before the Commission is 
evidenced by the size and importance of the delegations in attendance. 
I am not going to make a speech, I am merely going to suggest to you 
the main issues that will have to govern any decision that this Commis- 
sion may reach in regard to this matter — this being an International 
Board dealing with these international streams, and being an advisory 
Board merely. The Commission has agreed upon certain principles 
governing the use of these boundary waters. The first was that the in- 
terests of navigation were paramount, but that wherever, without 
material injury to the interests of navigation, developments for power 
could be permitted by the use of those waters, that permission should 
be granted, but subject to the condition that each country was to be en- 
sured one-half the advantage from such development. Now, a strong 
objection has been made — there may be a great many others — that the 
present proposal involves the damming, by a series of dams, of the St, 
Lawrence river, a navigable stream of which both countries have by 



* Also Director, St. Lawrence Power Transmission Co. 



HEARING BEFORE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION 283 

treaty a common right of use. And there is a further question, whether 
the scheme, as suggested, is capable of being worked out in such a waj'' 
as to ensure to the people of both countries an equal division of the 
power generated. I should be very glad if you would arrange the order 
of your speakers and give us the names of these. Of course we will, first, 
hear from those who will explain the proposals of these two companies, 
one Canadian and one American. They propose jointly to deal with 
this question. If you cannot give us a list of the names we will call 
upon them. If Mr. McCarthy is here I will call upon him. 

Mr. Leighton McCarthy, K.C. : Mr. Chairman, and members of the 
International Waterways Commission: As I understand this matter, 
the Commission has met for the purpose of again discussing this some- 
what important International matter. It is not by any means a new 
matter to the members of your Commission. In October, 1907, this 
scheme or proposition was laid before this Commission in this room. 
A month or two later, as a result of certain criticism, or in view of the 
importance of the question from the standpoint of the city of Mon- 
treal, you, sir, convened a meeting there, and the matter was very fully 
discussed by the representatives of the respective power companies, 
and, likewise, by those who were interested in seeing that all the details of 
the scheme were laid bare, and in protecting whatever rights or interests 
they might have upon the river St. Lawrence. Again, in November, 
1908, when your Commission was in session in Toronto, this matter 
was again discussed. On the 8th January of this year the matter was 
discussed once more before this Commission in Buffalo, and then it was 
suggested that a meeting should be held in the city of Toronto for the 
purpose of further discussing it. 

The original proposition made by the companies desiring to develop 
power at the Long Sault rapids in the St. Lawrence river was presented 
to the Government of Canada in December, 1907. The plans and pro- 
position were discussed in a conference between the engineers of the 
power companies and the Government engineers. Certain modifications 
or changes in that scheme or proposition were suggested, resulting in an 
amended proposition or petition being submitted to the Government of 
Canada in January, 1909. That, sir, is the scheme which you are now 
considering. 

As I said in opening, this is an International matter. It is not a 
matter involving only the interests of one country; it involves the in- 
terests of the great republic to the south of us as well as the interests of 
Canada. Both companies therefore ask a broad consideration of the 
scheme which they are submitting. It will better Canada as it will 
better the United States. We ask for a united effort on the part of 
Canadians and Americans for the betterment of the citizens of both 
countries. It is recognized by each country that the consent each gives 



284 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

must be subject to the consent of the other. Never has either company 
asked of its Government anything else than that the approval of this 
scheme should be subject to the approval of the other country. Therfr- 
fore we come before you asking, in the interests of progress and devel- 
opment, that a broad national view be taken of this progressive prop- 
osition. 

The water which now passes down the Long Sault rapids has for 
all these years practically run to waste. It is said that a large amount 
of power can be developed there. The citizens of Canada and the citi- 
zens of the United States in that immediate locality are far removed from 
the coal mines, which are the steam producers of both countries wherever 
water-powers do not exist. This water-power, therefore, should be to 
this locality what coal mines are to Nova Scotia or the West, or to 
Pennsylvania. Now, sir, you will bear me out that we have from the 
beginning agreed in endorsing and accepting the statement which you 
have so well made with reference to the interests involved in, or affected 
by this proposed scheme. At the present time, as I understand it, 
if doubt there be in the minds of any of the members of the Commission, 
it is solely and only on the subject of navigation. Speaking in Toronto 
in 1908, sir, you said: 

"No permission would be given to anybody that does not 
give complete and absolute control to some representatives of 
each Government, whatever form it takes. At present this Com- 
mission may be given greater power to deal with these questions 
relating to boundary waters; but, at all times, they will be subject 
to the control of somebody so that the interests of navigation wiU 
be protected to the utmost. There is no danger at all from any- 
thing of that kind, — -not the slightest. The one great, big point 
here, and the only one point, is whether these proposed improve- 
ments — which ought to be granted if they are not an injury to 
navigation — will be an injury or a benefit upon the whole — and you 
have to look upon them as a whole. Now, that is all there is to it. 
You need not be afraid but that the matter will be very seriously 
considered by all the members of the Commission, who will seek 
to get at the principle and do what is right under the principle 
established, and which are the only proper principles to govern 
them in dealing with what are international waters. We do not 
want, and must not allow, any little jealousies between the two 
countries to arise. Nobody has any property in this water; it is 
not American water, it is not Canadian water; it is for common 
use." 

You likewise spoke, sir, in just as plain terms in the city of Montreal 
in November 1907. You said to the parties interested in navigation: 

" The interests of navigation are to be in all cases paramount, 
and subject only to the right of use of the water for domestic 
purposes. That is to say, that, when water is taken at Sault Ste.- 
Marie, one-half of the power of the surplus water that can be taken 



HEARING BEFORE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION 285 

without interfering with navigation should be reserved for the use 
of the Canadian people. That principle has been adopted by the 
general Commission. Now, this application comes before the 
International Waterways Commission, being an international 
matter, and has to be dealt with by both Governments. Of course, 
it is the desire of the Commission, and in the public interest, that, 
where power can be developed without injury to paramount rights 
of navigation, it should be permitted; but if there be interference 
with those rights, of course it cannot be allowed." 

Again, later, ia speaking in reply to a gentleman, you put it possi- 
bly more succinctly, and very much to the point, when you said : 

"You can rely upon that. I said at the opening, that the 
principle agreed upon by both sections of the Commission, United 
States and the other, is that the interests of navigation are para- 
mount. The only idea was that we should allow public improve- 
ments consistent with that, but not otherwise. It is to get at some 
means of finding what the truth is that we are holding this 
meeting." 

Now, as I say, we concede that the interests of navigation are par- 
amount. What is the situation, then, as it applies to navigation in- 
terests? And what are the navigation interests involved? We assert; 
our engineers advise us — and we have not heard of any engineer who 
says to the contrary — that not only will navigation not be prejudicially 
affected at this particular point, but that it will be vastly improved. 
We have yet to hear from any engineer who says that the navigation 
interests at this particular point will not be improved if our proposed 
scheme is allowed to be carried out. It has been currently said by 
some of the opponents of the project, — " Oh, but you must not dam the 
St. Lawrence!" Sir, that is technically correct, but we do not propose 
to dam the St. Lawrence in the sense in which these opponents desire to 
convey to the public. The dam or dams that are proposed would be at 
an impassable point — at the Long Sault rapids. These rapids are not 
used by the great majority of the vessels which ply the St. Lawrence 
route, in fact there are but one or two exceptions which I will deal with 
later. No vessel going west on the St. Lawrence uses the Long Sault 
rapids. At present, both Canadian and American boats going west 
must use the Cornwall canal. Seven lockages are necessary in order to 
get through that canal. The proposed scheme does not affect in any 
manner whatsoever the Cornwall canal which is to be left intact and 
its integrity is to be preserved. It is a very simple proposition, 
and we have heard no engineer say that it was not practicable and 
feasible — not one. We offer to the navigation interests, going east 
and going west two channels where you now have but one. We offer 
to build for the navigation interests a new lock with but one lift. 
We tell you that there will be ample facilities and lots of water to 



286 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

handle the shipping that now uses the St. Lawrence river. Is there 
any man that will say that providing two channels where there is 
now but one is not an improvement ? And when I add to that, that the 
new channel will require but two lockages in the round trip, while the 
present channel requires 13 lockages in the round trip, the benefit is even 
more apparent. I think the scheme simply has to be studied. Its 
benefits are so obvious that when they are understood no cloud can be 
thrown across one's eyes to prevent one from seeing the benefit to be 
derived therefrom. 

Now, of course, the question as to whether or not the Company's 
project is practicable, is largely an engineering proposition. Two years 
ago this Commission offered to the Shipping Federation of Montreal, 
the Dominion Marine Association, the Board of Trade, or any other 
parties interested, the services of engineers, to be paid for by the Govern- 
ment of this country, to look into this scheme, and to advise as to whe- 
ther the proposition was feasible and practicable. Up to the present 
moment, I have not heard that any one of those organizations has taken 
advantage of that offer; nor have I heard of any engineer differing 
from our engineers with reference to the feasibility and practicability 
of the scheme. 

Now, what are the navigation interests involved ? I assert, although 
the Dominion Marine Association some time since did place itself on 
record as being opposed to this scheme, that the persons interested in 
the Dominion Marine Association — that is, the users of this channel — 
are not opposed to this proposition and that this proposition is in their 
best interests. Now, let us analyse the situation and see whether my 
statement is correct, and whether or not I can vindicate myself on that 
point. Who are the chief users of the St. Lawrence channel between 
Kingston and Montreal? They are practically altogether the freight 
interests. There is but one passenger line doing business between 
those points — 

A Voice: No. 

Mr. McCarthy: Two? 

A Voice: Two. 
■ Mr. McCarthy: Then I stand corrected. 

A Voice : Three. 

Mr. McCarthy: Mr. Smith's mind would find a great many, I have 
no doubt about that, but the only one that I have heard anything about 
is the one that protested at that moment. 

Mr. R. C. Smith, K.C: Would you like the names of the others? 

Mr. McCarthy: Oh, you will get a chance later. I say therefore, 
that the freighters are the people — the navigation interests, mostly 
interested in this proposition. Who are they? The one person, I 
suppose, who controls and manages the greatest volume of that kind of 



HEARING BEFORE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION 287 

business is Mr. J. W. Norcross. He is, as I understand, in control of the 
management of the Merchants Mutual Line, The Mutual Steamship 
Company, The Matthews Steamship Company, Jaques & Company, 
Bickerdike, Ltd., Collingwood Shipping Company, Canadian Lake 
& Ocean Navigation Company, and the Purdy boats. Now, J. W. Nor- 
cross & Co., have written a letter addressed to the International Water- 
ways Commission which reads as follows: 

Toronto, January 31, 1910 
Hon. Geo. C. Gibbons 

Chairman, Canadian Section 

International Waterways Commission 

Dear Sir: 

We have had called to our attention the proposed plans of 
the St. Lawrence Power Company, Ltd., and the Long Sault 
Development Company for the development of hydro-electric 
power at the Long Sault rapids in the St. Lawrence river. We 
have had these plans explained to us by the engineers and under- 
stand that the proposed improvement does not in any way impair 
the present efficiency of the Cornwall canal, and, that in addition 
to the present facilities which we now have, the companies propose 
to furnish us an entirely new channel with but one lock and that 
this channel will have 25 feet depth of water and be 800 feet wide, 
the current not to exceed four miles per hour. 

We are vitally interested in Canadian waterways and are 
operating the largest fleet of vessels at present engaged in the 
transportation of package freight from Montreal to Toronto and 
the West and the transportation of grain and other freight from 
Western points to Montreal. 

This new channel with one lock should save our vessels about 
three hours on each passage up or down, as compared with passing 
through seven locks in the present Cornwall canal in good weather; 
but in the event of high winds and very dark nights, it would 
enable the vessels bound from Montreal west without cargo to 
navigate in an 800 foot channel where they should otherwise be 
forced to tie up in the present Cornwall canal. 

This new channel would give us a double channel through the 
territory now served by the Cornwall canal and would remove 
almost entirely the possibility of the St. Lawrence being closed 
through accident to one of the present seven locks in the Cornwall 
canal, which, in 1908, tied up aU traffic on the St. Lawrence for 
about two weeks. 

The development of power contemplated by these companies 
should locate in the vicinity manufacturing plants which would 
tend to furnish business for Canadian vessels. 

In the last three paragraphs we have given some of our 
reasons for being in favour of the proposed plan and wish to put 
ourselves on record as believing that these improvements, if sue- 



288 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

cessfully carried out, are for the best interests of Canadian vessels 
and Canadian commerce. 

Yours very truly, 
(Signed) J. W. NORCROSS & CO. 

Vessel Agents and Brokers 
8-10, Wellington St., E. 
Toronto 
Mr. R. C. Smith: The date, please? 
Mr. McCarthy: January 31st, 1910. 
Mr. Henderson: Written by Mr. Norcross? 
Mr. McCarthy : I did not say so. I said it was written by J. W. 
Norcross & Co. That is whom it is signed by. 

Mr. Henderson : Mr. Norcross was in England at that time. 
Mr. McCarthy: I think he was in England. I think Mr. Hen- 
derson, you knew Mr. Norcross' views on this subject? 

Mr. Henderson: No, I have had no conversation with him. 
Mr. McCarthy: The other large freight interest is represented by 
Mr. Plummer, President of the Lake Freight Association, who is present 
and will speak for himself. I understand the freight companies which 
he represents recognize that this proposed scheme will be of very great 
benefit to them, and that they are prepared to say so and to place them- 
selves on record to that effect. 

Then, sir, we have the Montreal & Cornwall Navigation Company, 
which has also addressed a memorial to your Board, in which they say: 

Toronto, Ont., February 8, 1910 
To the Chairman and Members. 

Of the International Waterways Commission 

Gentlemen: 

We, the undersigned, The Montreal and Cornwall Navigation 
Company, humbly present this petition to you, in regard to the 
scheme now before you, in connection with the damming of the 
Long Sault rapids. 

We are the owners of several vessels plying on the St. 
Lawrence river between Brockville and the city of Montreal. 
We have had an experience extending over twenty years. Know- 
ing the river as we do, we are firmly of the belief that the proposed 
scheme wiU not in any way injuriously affect the present naviga- 
tion of the St. Lawrence river, as we understand the Cornwall canal 
will remain in exactly the same condition as it now is, while navi- 
gation, on the other hand, will be enormously improved owing to 
the fact that if this scheme is carried through to completion, there 
will be a lock in the South Sault, which will duplicate the means 
now afforded by the Cornwall canal for navigation past the Long 
Sault rapids. We are also strongly of the opinion that the velocity 
of the currents in the Farran Point and the Big Sny channels, will 
be subsequently lessened, and the dangerous side-current now 
existing at the upper entrance to the Cornwall canal will be 
destroyed. Duplicate navigation facilities past the Long Sault 



HEARING BEFORE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION 289 

will ensure shipping interests against delay due to the failure of, 
or accident in, either the Cornwall, or the South Sault lock. Boats 
passing the Long Sault wiU make a round trip in from four and one- 
half to seven hours less time than at present, which will lessen the 
cost of transportation of freight from points west of the Long 
Sault rapids to the city of Montreal. 

After the proposed works are constructed, the velocity of the 
current on the south side of Barnhart island will be very much 
decreased, and from the experience we have had on the river 
opposite and above Cornwall, we know that it will be feasible for 
boats to use the main channel on the north side of Cornwall island, 
between Cornwall and the foot of Barnhart island. 

We would say further, that in operating our boats between 
Montreal and Brockville, we meet very much stronger and swifter 
currents than at point Moulin. 

The freight which is carried both east and west on the St. 
Lawrence, passes almost entirely through the Cornwall canal, 
there being no quantity of freight carried through the rapids, con- 
sequently any scheme that will cause a saving of hours to vessels 
passing the Long Sault rapids, must be a great benefit to navigation. 

In view of the foregoing, we would say that we are heartily 
in accord with the scheme, and consider that it will accrue to the 
benefit of all navigation interests on the St. Lawrence river. 
Respectfully submitted, 

THE MONTREAL & CORNWALL NAVIGATION GO. 

per (Sgd.) P. E. Campbell 
President and Managing Director 

Mr. McCarthy : I may say that Mr. Campbell is here prepared to 
substantiate what he says in this letter. Then, sir, we have two other 
large interests in the way of freighters, one of which is The George Hall 
Goal Company of Canada, Limited, who wrote to you as follows : 

Toronto, February 8, 1910 

The Chairman and Members 

Of the International Waterways Commission 

Gentlemen: 

The George Hall Coal Company of Canada, Ltd., operates 
' twelve vessels between lake Ontario and Montreal, and maintains 
yards and offices in the city of Montreal, in which it is a large tax- 
payer, having an investment therein exceeding two hundred 
thousand dollars, and does a wholesale and retail coal business. _ 

We have been familiar with the problems of navigation in 
the St. Lawrence river for many years, and we have made a careful 
examination of the projected plans in relation to the Long Sault. 

From our inspection of these plans, and from our own Imowl- 
edge of river conditions, we see no objection to the project, as 
planned, affecting the general navigation of the river; on the 
contrary we consider that, offering as it does an alternative route, 

19 



290 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

it would be of very great advantage to all freight shippers in case 
of an obstruction occurring from any cause in the Cornwall canal. 
We believe that it would save about eight hours on each round 
trip that our boats take between the lake and Montreal by cutting 
out eleven lockages incident to passage. 
Respectfully submitted, 

THE GEORGE HALL GOAL COMPANY OF CANADA, LTD. 

per (Sgd.) W. C. Kellvet 

Agent for the purpose 

Mr. McCaethy: Then there is The Ogdensburg Coal & Towing 
Co., who wrote as follows: 

Ogdensburg, N.Y., February 8, 1910 
The Chairman and Members 

Of the International Waterways Commission 

Gentlemen: 

The Ogdensburg Coal & Towing Co., operate sixteen freight 
boats in the St. Lawrence river between lake Ontario and Montreal, 
and in connection with our business we operate a large wholesale 
coal business in the city of Montreal, and have a considerable 
investment in the city of Montreal, and have been so engaged for a 
period of thirty years. We are further allied with the Daly & 
Hannan Dredging Company, and have thus for many years made 
a special study of the channels and currents of the St. Lawrence 
river. 

We have fuUy examined the proposed plan of the St. Lawrence 
Power Go. Ltd., and are of the opinion that the proposed develop- 
ment will not only be no detriment to the navigation of our boats, 
but, will on the contrary, constitute a substantial improvement. 

We are members of the Dominion Marine Association, and 
desire to go on record as being in favour of this proposed develop- 
ment. The proposed development will leave unimpaired the 
present route through the Cornwall canal, and will give another 
route in the event of obstruction, repairing or enlarging of the 
Cornwall canal. 

Respectfully submitted, 

THE OGDENSBURG COAL & TOWING GO. 

per (Sgd.) John Hannan 

President 

Mr. McCarthy: Now, I may say that the representatives of The 
George Hall Company and Mr. Hannan himself are here, prepared to 
substantiate what they say in those letters. It was thought more con- 
venient to put their views iq that form in order that we might save 
time and have fewer speakers. Now, I shall read a letter signed by 
James Playfair, President of the Midland Navigation Company, Ltd: 



HEARING BEFORE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION 291 

Midland, Ont., February 1, 1910 

Hon. Geo. C. Gibbons, Esq., K.G., 

Chairman, International Waterways Gommission, 
Toronto, Ont. 
Dear Sir: 

Re SoiUh Saidt Channel: 

I understand there is a meeting in Toronto on February 8th 
of the different interests to discuss the power development at the 
Long Sault rapids. In the past aU our business has been on the 
Upper lakes, but if certain negotiations go through, I expect to run 
some of our boats to Montreal. At present I am unable to say 
what effect the development of the Long Sault rapids would have 
on navigation, but from what I can find out I do not think it would 
make any difference to freight boats using the St. Lawrence. In 
fact, I think it would be a benefit, as one lock would be used as 
against seven at present. So this would make a difference to a boat 
of six or seven hours on the round trip. 

Anything that can be done to improve navigation between 
Port Golborne and Montreal, making it safer and quicker, is in the 
interests of the vessel owners. 

Yours very truly, 

(Signed) JAS. PLAYFAIR 

Me. McCarthy: I have thus given the views of the Norcross in- 
terests, the Ogdensburg Goal & Towing Company, the George Hall Goal 
Company, the Cornwall & Montreal Transportation Company, and the 
Midland Navigation Company — if it makes this arrangement to run its 
freight boats to Montreal. Then, taking it for granted that Mr. Plummer 
represents himself and also, as I understand it, the MacKays of Hamilton 
and Mr. Jaques of Montreal, we have practically all the freight owners 
using that route, with the exception of my friend Mr. Henderson, in fa- 
vour of the project. All of those freight owners, owners of vessels car- 
rying freight — I speak under my instructions — have looked into this 
scheme and approved of it as a betterment to navigation; that is to say, 
provided that the necessary safeguards are furnished, that the in- 
terests of the country are protected and that the scheme as outlined by 
us is carried out. Now, as to my friend Mr. Henderson, I do not quite 
know exactly what his position is, he is here and will speak for himself. 
I have understood, however, that he is of the opinion that if this work 
can be carried out as we suggest, undoubtedly it would better the 
navigation facilities at that point; but he has some idea that possibly 
the interests of Canada will not be fully protected. WeU, as to that, 
sir, I am content to leave it with you and the Government of this country, 
who no doubt will see that no contract is entered into, or franchise or 
right given wherein Canada's interests are not fully protected. As I say, 
practically all the freight owners on the St. Lawrence route agree 



202 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

that this will better navigation facilities at this point. We preserve 
for them the only route they have now, and we offer them another 
one. 

We have yet to deal with the Richelieu & Ontario Navigation 
Company. True, its boats use the rapids, and have used them for a 
considerable length of time, that is to say, on their trips down the river. 
On the west-bound trips their boats must, in common with all others, 
use the canal. So, the deprivation in this case is : that it simply prevents 
that company, for a period of three or four months each year from run- 
ning these rapids with one passenger boat per day. We say that the 
giving of that lock will not delay them on down stream trips ; that they 
can make their time just as well by passing through that one lock as 
they can by passing the rapids. In answer to their objection that the 
scenic value of the rapids will be lost, we say that they will not be de- 
prived of that asset, but that instead, the proposed works wUl enhance 
its value. There are other rapids down the river which tourists will see, 
and the proposed dam would be forty feet high, with ten feet or so of 
water running over it; that will be something to look at, and something 
which tourists will come to see. Now, that is the navigation situation 
so far as users of that channel are concerned. 

What are the further interests that may be affected? We under- 
stand that the Shipping Federation of Montreal and the Board of Trade 
of Montreal are represented here. They have been heard before this 
Commission previously. They have with one voice said that so long as 
the level of the water at Montreal is not affected, that that is as far as 
Montreal and points east of Montreal need be concerned. Now, sir, I 
state as a fact, that the engineers of the Government, after conferring with 
our engineers, agree that the elevation of the water in the harbour of 
Montreal will not be affected in any way whatsoever by those works; 
that in the event of failure of these works Montreal would not be affected; 
that the level of the water in Montreal harbour would not be affected. 
The Shipping Federation of Montreal may rest assured of this fact, that 
the Government, from the first, and the Waterways Commission like- 
wise from the first, have said that the navigation interests are par- 
amount; you must be certain that they are not going to be interfered 
with before this work can be permitted. There has not been one tittle of 
evidence given to show that the level of the waters below these works will 
be detrimentally affected by them — not one tittle, sir. So that I say to 
the Shipping Federation of Montreal, the Harbour Commissioners of 
Montreal, the Board of Trade of Montreal, that they will not be preju- 
dicially or detrimentally affected in any way whatsoever; but instead, 
that they will be benefitted. If you want to bring shipping to your 
port, if you want to bring business to your city by the channel of the St. 
Lawrence from the West, the better facilities you have on it the more 



HEARING BEFORE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION 293 

business you are going to bring. There cannot be any answer to 
that. Conceding, as I do concede, that navigation interests 
are paramount, will the Shipping Federation of Montreal, the Board 
of Trade of Montreal, or the Harbour Commission of Montreal 
be affected at all unless it be that these works will affect the 
water there? If they do not affect the water, they cannot have one 
word of complaint, but on the contrary they must have words of appro- 
bation. The larger places that grow up contiguous to Montreal and in 
that locality must be a benefit to them. The development of this large 
power close to Montreal must be a benefit to Montreal. It may not be to 
the Montreal Light, Heat & Power Company; I do not know as to that; 
but as to the Montreal people and their interests, if they want large manu- 
facturing interests close to them, here is one means of securing them. 
We do not ask them if they are going to prejudice navigation interests; 
we do not ask if navigation interests are not paramount, we all admit 
and we concede that they are. But we say to them that not only do we 
not detrimentally affect navigation, but we vastly improve it, and will 
make the trade and commerce of their city more than it is to-day, be- 
cause the facilities will be better. A deep-draught boat may go through 
this proposed lock of ours, whereas it cannot go through the present 
GornwaU canal. There is an agitation on at present to deepen the 
Welland canal, to spend the country's money in deepening that. If 
that is going to be deepened in order to let vessels of large draught come 
to the city of Montreal, how much greater would be the benefit that this 
proposed improvement would be to that city! Does it realize the 
benefit of having vessels go through one lock, thus saving the deepening 
of the Cornwall canal to place it on a par with the Welland canal? 
Now, I say that the Government engineers have found that the level of 
the water at Montreal will not be affected by these proposed works; 
that the water in the channel east of Montreal or west of Montreal up 
to our proposed works or beyond, will not be detrimentally affected. 

Again, we have in the province of Ontario a large development of 
power in its western portion. The evidence of this is seen if anybody 
cares-to travel through it. Manufactories are growing up there. Where 
there was, in a measure, stagnation, there is now a development of 
manufacturing industries. Eastern Ontario has been robbed by western 
Ontario, because western Ontario has got power and eastern Ontario has 
not got power. I say that the towns near the Long Sault — Brockville, 
Cornwall, Morrisburg and all those places — will be benefitted by the 
development of this power in the same manner as the Niagara peninsula 
has been benefitted by the development of Niagara power. The people 
of Brockville recognize it. They are here to-day, some 20 or 25 strong, 
the most reputable and influential citizens, to demonstrate that. The 
people of Cornwall are represented here to-day, by Mr. Pringle and 



294 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

Mr. Campbell, asking and insisting that this work be allowed, in order that 
they may have power at their doors. What then, is the reason that 
the Companies' application should not be granted? There does not 
seem to me to be one logical reason, why these two companies should not 
be permitted to unite their efforts to develop power at the Long Sault. If 
it is demonstrated that navigation is interfered with prejudicially, it is 
granted that, under the ruling of this Commission, and the ruling of the 
Government, this work cannot be permitted. But iu the absence of that, 
is there one tittle of evidence? Is there one reasonable argument sug- 
gested, why these works should not be allowed to progress and this power 
to be developed for the good of the people of eastern Ontario? 

It is said that we should be alive at this moment to the conservation 
of national resources. Grant that we should; how do you conserve 
water-power? By letting it run to waste for ever and anon? You 
conserve timber by keeping it standing; you conserve coal mines by 
keeping them from being wastefuUy operated; but how do you conserve 
a water-power? In only one way that I can suggest, and that is, by the 
utilization of it. If you have water running to waste you are not con- 
serving it by letting it go on running to waste forever. Surely it be- 
hooves a progressive man, a man who desires to build up his country, to 
utilize that which God has given him in the shape of water-power; and 
utilization is the only method of conservation that I know of, and that 
is what we want to do at this particular point. Do not imagine, Mr. 
Chairman and gentlemen, that we for one moment desire to do this for 
nothing. We are prepared to negotiate, we are prepared to deal with 
the people who own this place. We are prepared to arrange upon what 
would be a fair and equitable basis to deal with anybody in respect of 
this power. 

There has been a great deal of clamour lest the Waterways Com- 
mission, in the discharge of its duty, and the Prime Minister and his 
Ministers ia the discharge of their duty, should allow a lot of rapacious 
Americans to come over to Canada and obtain too many rights. But 
the negotiations have been fair. All we ask, and all we want, is a fair 
and reasonable and equitable division of the power developed at this 
point by the two companies. Now, sir, if I could say anything more 
that would make this a fair and reasonable proposition I would be pleased 
to do so; but I have sought to answer all I have heard, all that has been 
said, in opposition to this proposition. 

The sentiment of Canadians has been appealed to. It has been 
said, "You are robbing me, a Canadian of my heritage." Well, we of 
Canada have a heritage, and we are proud of it; but if we have a herit- 
age that we are proud of, how much more pride can we have in that 
heritage if we use it and develop it and build up cities and manufacturing 
industries! But, as the Chairman pointed out when he referred to this 



HEARING BEFORE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION 296 

matter, two or three years ago, does this heritage belong entirely to 
Canada and to Canadians? From Ogdensburg to below Cornwall on the 
south bank of the St. Lawrence river is American territory. The Inter- 
national Boundary at those points is much closer to the Canadian shore 
than to the American shore. But let us assume an even division all 
along that long distance ;Jis not the St. Lawrence river at those points the 
common heritage of the two nations? There is no right, as the Chair- 
man says, in the water; there is a right of user; and all we ask on behalf 
of these two companies is to be permitted to use these waters for the 
development of both countries; for the benefit of the Canadian people 
as well as of the American people; to build up American interests, to 
build up Canadian industries. Now, sir, I would ask you to hear Mr. 
Rickey, who will simply outline technically the scheme of these two 
companies. 

Chairman Gibbons : As the Commission has never had any of those 
letters, or heard of them, I think they should be filed. 

Me. McCarthy: Certainly, sir, I intend to file them. — Mr. Mc- 
Carthy then handed to the Secretary of the Commission the letters 
which he had read. 

Mr. J. W. Rickey, C.E., Engineer for the St. Lawrence Power Com- 
pany and the Long Sault Development Company, then addressed the 
Commission. He said: 

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, and Gentlemen: I 
show on the map (indicating) the general outline of the plan proposed 
for developing the power of the Long Sault rapids. This plan is some- 
what like that which was shown you about two years ago, particularly 
those parts that lie south of the International Boundary line, which I 
will trace out with my pointer. (Tracing boundary line) . South of that 
line the works as outlined to you two years ago are the same. North 
of that line they have been changed. The plan now proposed contem- 
plates maintaining absolutely the integrity of the Cornwall canal. As 
Mr. McCarthy put it, it will not be interfered with in any way, no matter 
what happens to these works. Assume for the sake of argument that 
the dam should wash out, the Cornwall canal will not be interfered with 
at all. I wish to make that point very clear. Most of you are probably 
somewhat familiar with the situation of these islands. (Pointiag out 
Long Sault island, Barnhart island, Sheek island) . The Cornwall canal 
lies on the north side of Sheek island. This is (indicating on map the 
lock at the lower end of the South Sault channel) the single lift-lock 
to which Mr. McCarthy referred when he said the boats would 
save from four to seven hours time on each round trip, and at the 
same time avoid eleven lockages, there being required two lockages for 
each round trip in going through the South Sault lock, whereas there are 
thirteen required in going through Cornwall canal and Farran Point 



296 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

canal. If these works are completed, a dam will be built from the foot 
of Long Sault island to the head of Barnhart island. This is merely a 
diversion dam to deflect the water from the site of the present rapids 
down to the foot of Barnhart island, where the power-houses will be 
built. The channel between Barnhart island and Sheek island, known 
as Little River channel, will be deepened and widened; the ultimate 
width will be about a thousand feet. At the foot of Barnhart island will 
be built a dam, between the American shore, which is on the island, and 
the Canadian shore; and adjoining this dam will be built a power-house 
opposite lock 20. A canal will be excavated across the foot of Barn- 
hart island, and one, or possibly two power-houses, will be built at this 
point. I call to your attention particularly, that we are following 
absolutely the fundamental principles of natural conservation of nature's 
resources, in that at the inception of this plan, we have provided for 
ultimately developing all of the power that is available at this point. 
Probably — almost inevitably — we will all be dead then, for it is a long 
time in the future, but our grand-children will be able to see the day 
when all the power available at this point can be developed. 

Chairman Gibbons: How many horse-power? 

Mb. Rickey: There is approximately 600,000 horse-power avail- 
able at this point, and for that reason I say one, or possibly two, power- 
houses would be built at the foot of Barnhart island. Little River channel 
will be used, under the amended plan, really as a power canal; under 
the former plan it was to be used as a ship canal. That, briefly, gives a 
general description of the plan. Now let us see what results will follow. 
The South Sault channel will be widened to about 600 feet in width. 
There will be a minimum depth of twenty to twenty-five feet of water 
throughout the entire length of this channel. Boats coming down the 
river, instead of passing on the north side of Croil island, wUl pass to the 
south of it and across to the site of the present Dodge shoal — which will 
be removed to a depth of 30 feet — and then come down the South 
Sault channel. It will not be a canal ; it will be a river channel 600 feet 
wide, and boats will come down that channel, pass through a single lock, 
and down through the river. You may say that the current is too swift 
on the south side of Barnhart island for the boats to come up the channel 
south of this island. That is not the case; 95 per cent, of the total 
volume of water in the river, having passed through the rapids and 
through the South Sault channel, passes on the south side of Barnhart 
island in the maia channel. The upper dam between the foot of Long 
Sault island and the head of Barnhart island and the lower dam, 
having about the same length, will discharge approximately equal 
quantities of water. Consequently, we propose to divert half of the 
water that now flows past the south side of Barnhart island through 
Little River channel, and as the water on the south side of Barnhar*^ 



HEAKiNG BEFORE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION 297 

island is now approximately 60 feet deep — 40 feet deep the entire length 
of the island* — the depth will be decreased very little, and hence the 
velocity will be cut in two.* In other words, where there is now an 
eight-mile current on the south side of Barnhart island there will be 
only a four-mile current,! and all boats of every kind on the river can 
go against a four-mile current with their tows; otherwise they cannot 
get up the river at all. 

Me. J. A. HuTCHESON, E.G. : What is the present width and depth 
of the South Sault? 

Me. Rickey: That is pretty hard to answer, because sometimes 
it is only seven or eight feet deep at Dodge shoal. It is about a thousand 
feet wide at that point. There are other places where it is a thousand 
feet wide and forty or fifty feet deep. What we will provide at the 
South Sault channel is a canal 600 feet wide with a minimum depth of 
at least 25 feet. When these dams are built the water opposite lock 21 
will be raised about 2 ^ feet. The average depth of the river at this 
point is about 25 feet. In other words, we only increase the depth of 
the water about ten per cent. We will reduce the velocity of the current 
in inverse ratio, or about teri per cent. There is, however, at the 
entrance to the Cornwall canal a dangerous side-draught, so that the 
tows coming down-stream meet boats coming up-stream at the entrance 
to the canal; those going down-stream have a dangerous passage there, 
and to the extent that we raise the water at this point, so will we decrease 
that side draught and improve navigation. Another point that is of 
vital interest: just above lock 20 there is a difference of 35 feet head 
between the level of the water in the canal and the present level in 
Little river. When the dams are built and the water is raised to the 
same level at the head of Sheek island as now exists in the Corn- 
wall canal north of Sheek island, likewise we will have the same 
corresponding level just south of the guard-lock in the Cornwall canal. 
All danger of wash-out of the banks of the Cornwall canal between 
locks 20 and 21 will be forever removed, and that is a very important 
point. There was a wash-out some j^ears ago at this point. I can show 
you a place in the Cornwall canal where the bank is so soft that you can 
poke a stick down in it five or six feet, without pressing very hard. 
There is another place where there is a leak in the bank of the canal just 
below lock 20, and a barrel has been set in the bank, and that is where 
the cows get their daily drink. I think in general that the rivers — 

Chaieman Gibbons: Tell us approximately how much power 
would be developed by the Canadian company, and how much by the 
American company. 

*It is, in places, less than 25 feet deep. 

t This is a surprising statement, and without proof one that would not be 
entitled to general acceptance. — ^Ed. 



298 COMMISSION OP CONSERVATION 

Mr. Ricket: I call to your particular attention the relative loca- 
tion of the Cornwall canal at this point, and the International Boundary 
line — this broken line indicated by my pointer — and how this boundary 
line lies within about 600 feet of the Cornwall canal at this point. "We 
purpose buUding as large a power-house in Canada as can be built, and 
that power-house will have about 100,000 horse-power capacity. In 
order to do that, we propose to excavate a very high knoll at the north- 
easterly end of Barnhart island, cutting back some 800 feet from the 
shore in order to give passageway for the water coming over at that 
point. AnswerLQg your question directly, then, this power-house 
will be as large as we can make it; it will have about 100,000 horse- 
power capacity. 

Chairman Gibbons : Then the amount of the development on the 
American side will in the end be about six times as great; is that the 
position? 

Mr. Rickey: About five times as great. 

Chairman Gibbons: So that if we are to have an equal division 
of the power, some special arrangement will have to be made whereby 
Canada will share in the distribution of the power on the American side? 

Mr. Rickey: Yes, sir; and that is caused solely by the relative 
location of the International Boundary line, which of course cannot be 
shifted, and the Cornwall canal with which we cannot interfere. 

Commissioner Stewart: Would it be possible to put the dam in 
any other place, so that the power could be more evenly distributed? 

Mr. Rickey: I have made quite a number of studies and spent 
considerable time on that, and have been unable to devise any situation 
that is better than this, that will accomplish the purpose that you just 
mention. 

Chairman Gibbons: What about damming at Cornwall island , 
lower down? By putting the dams there, if it were feasible, there 
could be about an equal distribution on both sides, could there not? 

Mr. Rickey: Yes sir, but there is no ledge there, to provide a 
foundation for dams. When the Cornwall bridge-pier washed out two 
years ago, borings were made there to locate a new pier, and I think they 
went down something like 75 feet below water without striking ledge. 
I omitted to mention that all these structures — ^the power-house as well 
as gates, retaining walls, and everything — ^will rest on a solid limestone 
ledge. There is no soft foundation anywhere. We have spent a great 
deal of money to determine the location of those ledges. 

Commissioner Clinton : Does the location of the power-house on 
the American side of the boundary line or the Canadian side of the 
boundary line have the slightest effect on the distribution of the power 
between the two countries? 

Mr. Rickey: Not that I can see. 



HEARING BEFORE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION 29fl 

Chairman Gibbons: There is a point there that might be borne 
in mind; it is one of the matters that will have to be taken care of if 
the principle of the Commission is carried out — and I answer it now 
because it has to be considered by the promoters of this scheme if it is 
carried out. Each country has the right, without an absolute arrange- 
ment to prohibit the export of power; and if these power-houses are 
on the American side there is no power in Canada that can compel them 
to distribute power in this country. There would have to be some 
special arrangement if the principle of equal division is to be carried 
out in this place. 

Commissioner Clinton : Allow me to correct you. In the United 
States we cannot impose export duties. 

Chairman Gibbons: I am very glad to hear it. I had overlooked 
that. We have that power. 

Mr. McCarthy: We have exercised it, too. 

Chairman Gibbons: You may acquire it in the long hereafter. 
I think it is just as well to provide for it. 

Mr. Ibwin Hilliard, K.C. : I would like to ask Mr. Rickey the fall 
from the new lock to Cornwall in the south channel. 

Mr. Rickey: About 18 feet. 

Mr. Hilliard: How can you slow the water, even if you divert 
some of it, in an eighteen-foot fall? 

Mr. Rickey: I understood you to mean as it is to-day. Do you 
mean under future conditions? 

Mr. Hilliard: Yes. 

Mr. Rickey: If you let me consult my charts I can tell you that 
exactly. (After consulting charts). It would Jje 11 feet. 

Mr. Hilliard: Anybody who knows anything about drainage 
would know that that is a tremendous fall, so that that point of decreas- 
ing the current one-half in the South Sault is certainly controversial. 

Mr. Rickey: Yes, sir; but you must understand the hydraulics 
of the St. Lawrence river. There are places — for instance through 
Farran Point channel — where there is a fall of four feet in a distance of 
a mile, and the boats go right through it. Here is a distance of nearly 
twelve miles. 

Mr. Hilliard: Not twelve miles from there to Cornwall? 

Mr. Rickey: It is something like three and a half down to the 
foot of Barnhart island, and from there to Cornwall at the lower dock is, 
I would say 5 miles, or 8^ miles. 

Mr. Hilliard : The answer to that is this, that at Farran Point 
they take the cross-current. Anybody rowing on the river does that. 
What we say is that that is one of the controversial points, especially 
looking at the crookedness of the channel. 



300 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

Mr. Rickey : If we get to discussing back-water and velocity and 
everjrthing we are not going to get anywhere in this meeting. I have all 
my computations and data, which I will be only too glad to give to the 
Commission. 

Me. Ruckee :* What is the speed of the current between Cornwall 
island and Cornwall? Have you that determination? 

Me. Rickey: The average velocity from a point opposite the 
middle of Polly gut to the point opposite the west boundary of Cornwall 
is 3-7 miles per hour. The average velocity from a point west of the 
boundary of Cornwall to a point opposite lock 15 is 4- 18 miles per hour. 
These points were determined by allowing a boat to drift down the 
stream on a calm day, and noting farm houses, bridges, and other 
prominent points, and plotting them on a map, and computing the 
distances and the time against the rate. 

Mr. Eugene Lafleur, K.C. : When were those computations made 
that you have in your hand? 

Mr. Rickey: I cannot give you the exact date without referring to 
my notes. It was about September, 1907, when that drifting test was 
made. 

Mr. Lafleur: Were those accepted at any of the meetings of the 
International Waterways Commission? 

Mr. Rickey: I cannot answer that. I do not remember. 

Mr. Lafleur: As far as I am instructed, the only thing that 
was shown was the blue-print which is on the table there. 

Mr. Rickey: I referred to that blue-print to refresh my memory. 
We have spoken about the velocities of those currents and threshed 
that matter all over. 

Mr. Lafleur: You said the only new feature in your present 
project was that you were conserving the Cornwall canal. I understood 
you to say that that is the new feature in the project as at present sub- 
mitted. 

Mr. Rickey: I did not want to take the time of the meeting to- 
day to explain where this plan differs from the original plan, so I just 
said briefly that south of the boundary-line the plan was the same. 

Mr. Lafleur: Does it differ materially from the old proje-:t, apart 
from the conservation of the Cornwall canal? 

Mr. Rickey: Oh, yes. 

Mr. Lafleur: In many respects? 

Mr. Rickey: Not in many respects. The location of the Cana- 
dian power-house is just as it was before. I can indicate, if you wish, 
just where the changes are. Perhaps I will do that; it will only take a 



♦Stenographic error. It is probable that either Mr. HiUiard or Mr. Lafleur 
asked the question. 



HEARING BEFORE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION 301 

moment. Under our original plan, Little River channel was enlarged 
just as it is here. Then we asked permission to cut out the dam at the 
west end of Sheek island, to cut out the dam at the eastern end of Sheek 
island, and to build a lock between the Cornwall canal and the Little 
River canal, so called, each at a point about one mile west of lock 20. 
Other than that, this plan is the same. 

Me. Lafleur: The old project that you have just been describing 
was abandoned a long time ago? 

Mk. Rickey: That was abandoned, yes, quite a considerable — 

Mr. Lafleur: It was abandoned when the Commission held its 
sitting in Toronto in November, 1908? 

Mr. McCarthy: No, it was not. 

Mr. Lafleur: I see that Mr. McCarthy stated there that there 
would be two methods of going up and down the river; the boats would 
use the Cornwall canal as well as the South branch — just the same as 
you are proposing now. 

Me. McCarthy: That is identical. 

Me. Rickey: That is what I say now; you can always use the 
Cornwall canal just as you do now; you can also use the South Sault 
under the proposed plan; giving two alternate routes, so that no matter 
what happens to the Cornwall canal, the navigation of the St. Lawrence 
will not be interfered with. 

Me. Lafleue: You recollect that at that meeting in November, 
1908, you undertook to prepare further plans and data? 

Me. Rickey: Yes sir. 

Me. Lafleur: Did you prepare them? 

Mr. Rickey: Yes sir. 

Mr. Lafleur: And did you furnish them to any of the interested 
parties? 

Mr. Rickey: Yes. 

Mr. Lafleur: WUl you tell me what you furnished? 

Mr. Rickey: I furnished a general outline plan such as this. 

Mr. Lafleur: Could any engineer criticize that plan? 

Mr. Rickey: A competent engineer can. 

Mr. Lafleur: You think that from that plan — which is, I sup- 
pose, just an enlargement of the Admiralty chart — any engineer could 
say whether these works were feasible and were likely to interfere 
with navigation? 

Me. Rickey: Any engineer who knows the site can take that plan 
and say whether or not it is feasible. 

Mr. Lafleur: How was that plan made? Was it made by 
surveys on the ground? 

Mr. Rickey: Yes. 

Mr. Lafleur: Is that your plan? 



302 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

Mb. Rickey: Yes. 

Mr. Lafleur: And is that the same as the blue-print that has 
been handed to us? 

Me. Rickey: Exactly. It is off the same negative. 

Mr. Lafleur: You say from that plan or the blue-print any com- 
petent engineer could make up his mind as to the feasibility of the 
scheme, and as to interference with navigation? 

Mr. Rickey: Knowing the characteristics of the site, mind you. 

Mr. Lafleur: Then the characteristics of the site are not indi- 
cated on the plan? 

Mr. Rickey : You have to have a general knowledge of the location. 

Mr. Lafleur: Are the currents shown on that plan? 

Me. Rickey: No. 

Me. Lafleue: Or on the blue-print? 

Me. Rickey: No. 

Me. Lafleur: Are the heights shown? 

Mr. Rickey: No. 

Mr. Lafleur: Will you say that without knowing these features 
a competent engineer can makeup his mind either as to the feasibility of 
the scheme or as to its interference with navigation? He would have 
to know those features; he would not get them from your plan or from 
any material that you have furnished? 

Me. Rickey: What we submitted was the general plan showing 
the proposed arrangements, and that is what you see on the maps here. 

Mr. Lafleur: Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the Waterways 
Commission, I may say that I appear on behalf of the Board of Trade 
in Montreal, and I will have the honour at a later stage of the proceedings 
of submitting to you our views on the subject. I may say incidentally 
that I do not represent any private interests, and that we have endeav- 
oured to look at this matter in a dispassionate way, and as broadly as 
possible, but that, so far, we have been hampered by the lack of sufficient 
information; but I am instructed that that information is wholly inade- 
quate to enable them to make up tlieir minds either as to the practica- 
bility of the scheme in the crude form in which it is presented, or as to 
the possible dangers to navigation, and as to the results in the way of 
flooding the lands, etc. While my friend, Mr. McCarthy imagines that 
we are merely concerned with the level of the water at Montreal, I 
must remind you, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, that we take a wider 
view of our duties and responsibilities. We think that the welfare of 
Canada is the welfare of Montreal, and that anything that interferes 
with the navigation above, as well as below, Montreal is of the highest 
interest to our citizens, as it is to the country at large. Therefore we are 
apprehensive that, for lack of information which has been asked for 
again and again, and as we think has never been furnished — 



HEARING BEFORE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION 303 

Mr. McGakthy: What do you mean by "again and again"? 

Chairman Gibbons: I should like General Ernst, the engineer 
of our Commission, to be present when these criticisms are made. 
I, like yourself, am a lawyer. I understand that all this is subject to the 
approval of the Government engineers of both countries; that this Com- 
mission will not attempt to deal at present, and is not dealing at all, 
with any particular plan. I quite see your point, that whether any 
"plan is feasible may depend upon some of those questions that you 
have asked. That matter has been considered by the engineers con- 
nected with our Commission, but the details and the working out of the 
conditions are all subsequent matters entirely. The first question is: 
Is it permissible at all, under these conditions, to make this development ? 
The general question is now being dealt with. Certainly the engineers 
of both Governments will have to consent and approve, and possibly this 
Commission will approve of any detailed plan. 

Mr. Lafleur: I quite appreciate what you have just said Mr. 
Chairman, but it does seem to me — and I am so instructed by competent 
engineers — that the details are of the very essence of the matter; that 
you cannot say whether or not the proposed scheme is going to interfere 
with navigation, or is going to injuriously affect the property situated 
above the proposed development, unless you have a detailed plan giving 
the particulars that are necessary in order to arrive at a conclusion. It 
does not seem to me to be merely a matter of detail to be settled after- 
wards. It seems to me to be of vital importance to settle the project. 
I am not alone in this view. I have consulted with various interests 
who are more or less opposed to this scheme, and I understand that we 
are unanimous in feeling that up to this time we have not got the infor- 
mation that is necessary to enable us to offer any criticism on the plan. 
You recollect that my friend Mr. McCarthy said a moment ago that no 
engineer has been heard of who makes the slightest objection to the 
feasibility of the scheme, or who pretends that navigation is going to be 
interfered with. Wall, how can an engineer do that until we have got the 
information we are now seeking ? And I would like to draw your atten- 
tion to what passed at the last meeting, where that very request was 
made, and where an understanding was arrived at that these data should 
be furnished; and we have been waiting ever since for these data. I 
take the liberty, if I am not occupying too much time, to refer to pages 
42 and 43 of those proceedings, where Mr. Rickey admitted that he had 
not the particulars. 

At this juncture — 4.15 p.m. — General Ernst and Professor Haskell 
arrived and took their seats. 

Chairman Gibbons: Now, that we are all here, I will have a 
chance to talk to General Ernst in relation to the matter you speak of, 
Mr. Lafleur. I may say that the Government engineers have seen the 



304 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

plans suggested. I am not at liberty to submit their reports, which are 
confidential. They are the only ones that are available, in a general way 
to the Canadian section. The gentlemen who were at Montreal will bear 
me out that I was very strong in pressing the suggestion that the boards 
interested appoint engineers; and I, at that time, obtained the consent of 
the Government to pay the expense of any such experts out of the public 
funds. That offer was not availed of, perhaps for perfectly good reasons ; 
but, now that we are here, I think we had better let the discussion go on. 
I think it would be very unfortunate to block the proceedings at this 
time. I think it would be better to go on and hear what the people have 
to say in regard to this proposition. 

Mr. Laplettr : I agree with what you say, Mr. Chairman. I am not 
alone in this view. The Toronto Board of Trade are ia the same 
position as we are. They are quite desirous of giving the matter a 
dispassionate consideration, in the interests of the public purely. But 
they have been quite unable, from the material so far supplied, to 
arrive at any conclusion. I think the President of the Toronto Board 
of Trade, who is here, will agree with what I say — that we have been 
experiencing serious difficulty in consequence of the present condition 
of the project, which does not seem to me, so far as I can judge from 
the remarks, to have advanced one step since the meeting of Novem- 
ber, 1908. I have read what passed at that meeting, what was under- 
taken to be furnished, and I say that nothing of that kind appears to 
have been done. 

Mr. McCarthy: That is not correct. 

Chairman Gibbons: That is just not correct in this sense: They 
have in the meantime supplied to the engineers of the Government, the 
three leading engineers, these plans. They have reported to the Govern- 
ment in regard to that. It is perfectly true that so far as this Commis- 
sion is concerned we have heard nothing of it for some time. The matter 
was sought to be brought up at Buffalo, and was adjourned here; but all 
these matters will be dealt with, I think, by my friend General Ernst 
much more ably than Mr. Clinton and myself — ^f or he is also a lawyer — 
will be able to deal with them. I think if we would hear the gentlemen 
who are present, deal with the general proposition in the meantime, it 
would be more satisfactory. 

Mr. Francis King: In deference, Mr. Chairman, to what you 
have said, I think I ought to keep my seat; but in order that my clients 
may enjoy the full advantage of what you have said, I ought to say a 
word. General Ernst will probably be able to bear out what I 
say in regard to the understanding at the meeting in the King 
Edward hotel in 1908. At that time, we were in the identical 
position that we occupy to-day with the one exception, so far as I can 
gather in the last fifteen months, that the second canal, that is now to 



EARING BEFORE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION 305 

run north of Sheek island, was to be diverted into the Little river on the 
Canadian side. At that time it .vas very clearly understood over the 
table, and it is on the record, that plans and details of the fullest nature 
were to be laid before us so that we could avoid this discussion which 
the chair is now anxious to avoid ; and until this date we have not one 
iota of information that gives us what we wanted. We had that plan, 
and I had a little pamphlet with some letter-press in it which did not even 
tell me whether the Farran Point canal was to be obliterated or was to 
remain. I think we may be quite satisfied on all hands if we treat the 
present meeting as one for the purpose of eliciting that information. 
Then, if so, let me refer to something said by Mr. Rickey a minute ago. 
The question was asked as to whether or not the current or the depth 
at a certain point would be altered, and he said it was very unfortunate 
if that discussion would go on at this stage. Now, it should either go on 
the record or we should be supplied with that information so that we 
could make our case for or against. With reference to Mr. McCarthy, 
I think he misunderstood our position to some extent. It is informa- 
tion that we are seeking. We are not all irrevocably opposed to this 
thing. There are freight interests that might think it was a good thing; 
but we want information, and if this meeting could adjourn for the 
purpose of getting the information and then could decide, it would be 
well. 

Mk. G. H. Watson, K.C. : I wish to join with Mr. Lafleur in the 
view he has expressed. I understand — if I am not quite accurate you 
can correct me, no doubt — that the object of this meeting is to enable 
your Commission to enquire and to report to the Governor in Council 
as to the feasibility of this commercial project to dam the waters of the 
river. 

Chairman Gibbons : Not in detail. 

Me. Watson: Well, the feasibility of the proposal; and we were 
kindly invited by you to attend and to state our views. Of course the 
feasibility, or non-feasibility, of it depends very largely upon the terms 
and conditions involved in its proposal, and without the particulars and 
details of that it is very difficult for us to do justice to our clients or to 
ourselves in endeavouring to state an answer. You, Mr. Chairman, know 
that in court procedure we require, particularly in answer, that the full 
case of the other side should be stated before we are called upon to 
answer. Now, is it not so that in this matter, which is one of very 
great importance, of vital importance to many interests, we should be 
luUy seized of all the facts and details to enable us faithfully and pro- 
perly to present an answer which may be of advantage to you and to 
your Board in reaching a conclusion? I would, therefore, respectfully 
submit to you, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, that the further con- 
sideration of the matter should be postponed until those details are pre- 

30 



306 COMMISSION OP CONSERVATION 

sentfed to us, and until we have had an opportunity of examining them, 
and have the advantage and benefit of engineering skill; we may then 
present the circumstances and facts to you in a proper and intelligible 
way. 

Me. R. C. Smith: I take it, Mr. Chairman, that we are invited 
here in order to represent fully to you the various interests that are 
probably affected by this scheme. Now, if we are not furnished the in- 
formation which in the most formal manner was promised to be furnish- 
ed, I say, it is quite impossible for any interest to state its position be- 
fore this Board. Mr. John Kennedy — 

Mr. McCarthy : What interest do you represent ? 
Me. R. C. Smith : I represent especially the Richelieu & Ontario 
Navigation Co. Mr. John Kennedy is an engineer who has had, I 
venture to say, more experience as to the action of moving water and 
as to the action of ice, than any other; and Mr. John Kennedy this 
very day informed me that no engineer lives who could form any 
opinion whatever or give any rational statement of his position upon 
the information that is furnished up to this date. Mr. Kennedy is in 
the room. 

Hon. Adam Beck : Mr. Chairman, speaking for the province of 
Ontario we find ourselves in a position very similar to that of the gentle- 
men who have addressed you. We have to-day no details or description 
of any kind that will enable our engineers to look into the matter as to 
the effect this project will have on the shores of the province of Ontario. 
You were kind enough to give me a map, I presume a copy of the blue- 
print before us, and one other, and some description of the undertaking, 
which I submitted to the engineers of the Hydro-Electric Commission. 
They reported that they were unable, with the information at hand, 
to give any definite statement of what it would mean to the Province. 
Of course the Province has other contentious questions to bring before 
you. We object seriously from a provincial standpoint that we have 
not been considered, Mr. Chairman, though I believe the state of New 
York was considered by the United States Government. We have not 
had any opportunity of looking into the matter whatever. Therefore 
I wish, without any intention of delaying or blocking the meeting in any 
way, to make this statement on behalf of the Province. 

Me. Hilliaed : I wish to state that I hold a brief for the Ontario 
Government on these contentious questions. I do not know that it is 
opportune to discuss them now, but I wish before the session closes to 
have an opportunity of entering the protest of the Province in relation to 
what Mr. Beck has hinted at. 

Me. B. Cumbeeland : On behalf of the city of Toronto I would say 
that the Board of Trade, representing not simply the city of Toronto, 
but a large membership from all parts of the Province — ^from Chatham, 



HEARING BEFORE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION 307 

Walkerville, London, Woodstock, Guelph, Hamilton, Brockville and 
other points — desire to join in the protest which has already been placed 
before you. In 1907 the Board asked for the fullest consideration, and 
expected to have the plan submitted to them. Upon receiving the 
notice of this meeting stating it was called to consider plans, a request 
was made to your Board for the submission of those plans. 

Chairman Gibbons : I never heard of it. 

Mr. Cumberland: The reply received was that plans might be 
obtained from the promoters, but, in all probability, not in time for this 
meeting. That in the meantime, practically nothing had been done, and 
it was the same old proposition which would be again brought up. I sub- 
mit, sir, on behalf of the Board of Trade, that we should have had those 
plans ia order that we might give the matter full consideration. I also 
submit that we have learned to-day that while the Commission may have 
been resting, the promoters have been active; and we further learn — 
which I think is news to us all — that the promoters have been in com- 
munication with the Canadian Government engineers. If I read the 
records of the past at all, it was undei'stood by all parties that the 
fullest information would be given to them and that, if there were any 
engineering questions, they should have the fullest opportunity of 
entering into it themselves. I beg respectfully, sir, to make my 
protest. I would say that if there are any^ 

Chairman Gibbons: The right to be heard on questions that 
might be taken up afterwards, is reserved. 

Mr. Hutcheson: May we not deal with the expediency of this 
question, on the assumption that it is a feasible one? I quite admit 
that the detail is to a certain degree interwoven with the question of 
expediency; but if I were conducting a case in court and were given an 
opportunity of having an engineer examine the ground and test the 
matter by surveys, levels, measurements, tests of current, velocity, and 
everything of that sort, not at my own expense but at the expense of 
the Government, and failed during a period of more than a year to avail 
myself of that opportunity, I should think I would come to court with 
a very lame case if I should agaia ask a postponement for lack of inform- 
ation. 

Mr. King : That was on a different set of plans. 

Chairman Gibbons : At the meeting in Buffalo I raised this ques- 
tion myself, that in the absence of details it was impossible to finally 
decide this matter. The other members of the Commission thought 
that as the matter was coming before Congress, and had to be dealt with 
there on the general principle, all that was asked of the Commission was 
whether there was any objection to the Bill in Congress. That Bill only 
provides for the erection of these dams subject to the approval of the 
Government of the Dominion of Canada and also subject to the approval 



308 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

of the Secretary of "War for the United States. It was urged upon me 
by my confreres, and I think rightly, that there was no reason why this 
general question should not be disposed of. The desire was that we 
should have acted at Buffalo. I objected to any action at all until we had 
time to hear the general objections to the scheme. Now, the Act in- 
troduced into Congress makes special provision that nothing is to be 
done without the consent of the Dominion of Canada; and the Bill as 
amended by Congress — if our Commission report at all favourably to the 
project — will not only make provision that these plans should be ap- 
proved of by the two Governments, but will make provision also for 
carrying out the principle which we have enunciated, of protecting 
Canadian interests, the interests of both countries, with an equal division 
of this power. We have had to-day the general statements : my learned 
friends have spoken as if they could not give any decision because they 
did not have information; we have had numerous resolutions passed by 
people who had reasons we supposed, for passing them, and we had 
hoped that they would come here and give us those reasons. They did 
come to conclusions. I certainly did not know that anybody had asked 
for plans. It is the first I heard of it. I think everybody who attended 
the meeting in Montreal will agree that I personally made every effort 
to have an engineer appointed, and to have the strictest enquiry 
made into this matter. There has been no attempt by any member 
of this Commission to rush things. At the meeting in Buffalo my 
confr&res thought that we ought to decide the preliminary matter 
whether under certain conditions, and only under certain conditions, this 
work should go on. Now, I think it would be very foolish, having come 
to this meeting with all these people, if we could not thresh out these 
generalities now, and I can assure you that you need not be the slightest 
bit afraid that anybody will consent to go on with this work until the 
details are fully looked into and the work is approved of — as it must be 
approved of, by the Governments at Washington and at Ottawa — and 
possibly also by this Commission if these two Governments refer to us to 
approve of those details. Now, I think we can go on with our general 
discussion, and I think you can leave those details to be looked after by 
those on whom the obligation rests. 

Mb. F. E. Meredith, K,p.: Acting for the Shipping Federation 
of Canada it appears to me that at present we have a certain 
amount of information about this scheme. We have made up our 
minds from the information that we have, but we have not got 
the whole information. Now, I do not think it wise for 
anybody to be asked to give an opinion unless he has the 
whole information. You have been good enough to ask different 
corporations, among them the one for whom I act, to give expression to 
their feelings. Now, we learn to-day, that we have not all the informa- 



HEARING BEFORE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION 309 

tion about this scheme, but, that, on the contrary, apparently the only 
people who have got it are the Government engineers, who are no doubt 
very capable people. But it seems to me that in order to understand 
this thing properly we ought to have it put before us with the same in- 
formation as the Government engineers have been put in possession of, in 
order that we may intelligently give our views on the situation as it is 
to-day. (Hear hear) It seems to me to be absolutely useless for people 
to be called here and asked to give their views, and not to be told the 
whole thing. It is merely giving an opinion on a half-stated case, and I 
submit that those plans that have been submitted to the Government 
engineers should have been submitted to the parties interested. That 
was understood a year ago in the King Edward hotel and it has not been 
done. What the Shipping Federation are looking for is the whole scheme 
in order that they may intelligently ascertain from people who under- 
stand these matters whether the scheme is, on the whole, going to be 
for the benefit of Canada in so far as navigation is concerned; not for 
any local part, but for the whole of Canada. 

Mr. Hilliard: As the position the proviace of Ontario takes, 
goes to the root of the whole matter in so far as constitutional questions 
are concerned, and not on any question of detail, I propose at this stage, 
if you will permit me, to enunciate — 

Chairman Gibbons: No, I do not think I will permit you. I think 
we will go on in the usual order and hear those who are in favour 
of the Bill, and then we will hear the answer. (Hear, hear). I have 
great respect for you, but I think we still desire to hear what those in 
favour of this Bill have to say, and then hear as fully as you like, from 
you and other gentlemen who are opposed to it. 

Mr. Watson: Perhaps in connection with that you might hear 
those who are in favour of the proposition — 

Senator Derbyshire : I wane to know if the Chairman is to be 
obeyed. 

Chairman Gibbons: The Chairman will take care of himself, if 
you wUl allow him. (Laughter and applause). Mr. McCarthy, if you 
will tell me the next gentleman you wish to address the meeting. 

Mr. McCarthy: Mr. Plummer. 

Mr. King: I hate to repeat myself, but we had some questions we 
wanted to ask. 

Chairman Gibbons: You should have the privilege of asking 
questions as you please. 

Mr. King: How far up the St. Lawrence do you propose to raise 
the level? You mention two feet and some inches at lock 21; how 
much further will the change in the level take place? 

Mr. Rickey: What do you mean by the change of level? A 
millionth of an inch, or two inches, or three inches? 



310 COMMISSION OP CONSERVATION 

Mb. King: An inch or so. 

Mb. Rickey: At Bradford point, above Farran Point, and, 
roughly, about five miles west of Groil island, the back-water rise 
will be approximately six inches, and at Morrisburg it will be a little 
over an inch, or possibly two inches; say between one and two inches. 

Mb. King: Then you do away with the necessity for the Farran 
Point canal? 

Mb. Rickey: No sir. 

Mb. King: There will still be some current there? 

Me. Rickey: There will still be some current, but it will be re- 
duced at the Farran Point canal. 

Me. King: And navigable by all boats going up and down the St. 
Lawrence ? 

Me. Rickey: You mean on the outside channel? 

Me. King: You know only some of our boats can now go up 
Farran channel. 

Mb. Rickey: It will not be materially reduced; it may be im- 
proved. The back-water rise will be only approximately a foot. It wiU 
reduce the current about four per cent. 

Mb. McGabthy: Mr. Plummer. 

Me. Fbank Plummee: I understand this is to be dealt with just in a 
general way; and as representing a freight interest I would say that if we 
have proper assurance that the present channels will not be interfered 
with; that the proposed lock on the American side will be open seven 
days in the week, or six days if Sunday is not allowed by law; and that 
it is free to Canadian boats; then as a freight interest we are in favour 
absolutely. (Hear, hear). And I speak as a representative of what 
we call the Lake Freight Association, which includes the majority of the 
package freighters on Canadian freight from Montreal to Fort William 
and return (Hear, hear) . That is all I can say in a general way. We are 
distinctly in favour of it if it fulfils such conditions. 

Me. W. G. Maclaeen : Mr. Chairman, and members of the Waterways 
Commission, I have the honour to represent, as President, the Brock- 
ville \Board of Trade, also the Trades and Labour Council, the manu- 
facturing industries and industrial activities of the town of Brockville. 
I might say at the outset that all those interests in Brockville are a unit 
unquestionably 'in favour of this scheme as outlined to-day. We are 
here to voice our opinions in favour of this plan, and to ask that favour- 
able consideration be given to the granting of this Charter to the Long 
Sault Development Company. Geographically, we are situated on the 
height of land between Pennsylvania and Nova Scotia. We, therefore, 
have to pay the highest freight for our coal. It costs us over $40 per 
horse-power for ten hours to produce power industrially in that locality. 
If we get electric power there we hope to be able to reduce that cost to 



HEARING BEFORE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION 311 

$15 or $18 per horse-power for 24 hours. Now, then, we think that is 
worthy of considerable attention from an industrial standpoint ; there- 
fore we ask that this point be given very favourable consideration. It 
has been pointed out that electric power is a substitute for coal, and 
is commonly called "white coal"; and if that is the case, then we have 
at our doors at Brockville a great deal of that natural resource of Ca- 
nada — white coal. Under the arrangement, I presume we can get from 
there at least 300,000 h.p., to be developed there for Canadian use. 
The conservation of our natural resources is at present occupying a great 
deal of the national attention. It is said that coal is one of the greatest 
of those natural resources; and if by utilizing electric power instead of 
coal we can save for other parts of Canada where coal is ased, and where 
they have no electric power; then we are going a long way towards 
conserving one of our great natural resources by using power where 
power can be used, in those localities and parts of Canada where power 
is, in order to leave the coal in our national deposits for those parts of 
Canada where electric power is not developed. This plan of the Long 
Sault Company also conserves the water-power of Canada. It is, as I 
understand it, on the American side of the International Boundary. 
This power is largely in the United States. Now, if we can by using the 
other fellow's material save our own material, surely we are conserving 
it.- Therefore, I think that if we use the power of the United States 
instead of Canadian power, to that extent that we use American power 
we are conserving our own. In this way we can help the con- 
servation of our natural resources in water-power by utilizing 
the power from the United States. This proposition could be 
illustrated conversely by the pulp industry at Fort Frances. We 
notice how our Canadian pulp industry is affected there. If one 
goes to Fort Frances he can see on the opposite side of the line 
large pulp mills in Minnesota in the United States, developed by 
United States capital, utiHzing United States labour, making profit for 
the Americans and drawing their raw materials from Canada. Now, 
we claim that they are conserving their own national resources of pulp 
wood, but they are consuming ours. We therefore think conversely, 
that if we can consume the power from the United States we are, at that 
point in particular, conserving our own, and leaving all the power to the 
north of us for that part of eastern Ontario which needs power as badly 
as we do. 

Now, coming down more particularly to our own interests indus- 
trially, I might say that in Brockville we had a few years ago an Ameri- 
can concern come there and start a plant, which they operated for a 
considerable period of time. There were rumors that they were going 
to leave Brockville and go to another part of Ontario where power 
could be had. We offered them $50,000 of a bonus to stay; we offered 



312 OOMliaSSION OF CONSERVATION 

them free light, free water and exemption from taxes; but those induce- 
ments, large as we thought them at the time, were of no consideration 
to them whatever, and they moved to western Ontario where they could 
get power. Another industry that we had hoped to keep in Brock- 
ville, because local capital is largely interested in the concern, left us 
and took with them fifty of our people to Welland. The other concern 
that I spoke of took 150 of our people, and at the present time they 
have in their employ, as I understand it, nearly 3,000 people. All this 
has been lost to Brockville. At the present time our own factories have 
promised definitely that if we can get electrical power there they will 
largely increase their institutions. Therefore we think that these are 
great and weighty reasons why that part of the St. Lawrence and that 
part of eastern Ontario are deeply interested in this question. This 
power also, from the larger standpoint, undoubtedly trends towards the 
electrification, as it were, of Canada, and will also add to the general 
comfort of the pubUc by doing away with a great many of the incon- 
veniences which at the present time are due to using coal. 

It will also, I think, conserve another of our natural resources in 
doing away with the sad ravages from fire along the routes that those 
railways, propelled by electric power, will traverse. It has been said 
publicly, and perhaps will be used as an argument by the Richelieu and 
Ontario Navigation Company, or other interests, that the scenery will be 
affected. Mr. McCarthy has anticipated that. Now, I think we feel 
keenly the answer he has given to an argument of that kind. We feel 
that he has fully answered that by showing that the scenery will be im- 
proved. When those boats go down through the South Sault channel 
and through that lock and travellers can see 3,800 feet of a dam, over 
which will fall ten feet of water, they will view one of the finest sights 
in the world. When they come through the largest lift-lock in the world 
they will also have something to attract travellers to that part of the 
country. These are things that I think should be considered from the 
tourists standpoint. There will be a dam larger than the Assuan or 
the Assiut dam in Egjrpt, and something that will attract tourists. 

Navigation has been also referred to. Now, I take it as a fair 
principle that a river is not fairly navigable unless it is navigable both 
ways, up and down. At the present time the Long Sault is not navig- 
able both ways. It is only navigable by light boats going down, but not 
returning. We think the freight question has been pretty well handled. 
We appreciate the views. We think it has been fairly shown that four 
and half hours can be saved to these freighters by this plan. That 
appeals to us from the shipping standpo'nt. 

We in Brockville feel our position very keenly in regard to this 
matter, and I might say that that is why we have appeared here in such 
a large body representing our town. We might just as well have brought 



HEARING BEFORE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION 318 

a thousand, for as a whole we are as enthusiastic as we are as a deputation 
and we think that anything that should be done to prevent this scheme 
from going through would be a step in a backward direction. We feel 
that there would have to be some very weighty reason indeed that would 
prevent this scheme from receiving favourable consideration at the 
hands of the Commission. We feel that it would have to be shown to 
be very perilous indeed to our country as a nation. Now, we take a 
larger view, as well as a local view, of this question, and we feel that 
Canada can only be made a nation, industrially and every other way, by 
having the several parts of it built up to contribute their share to the 
general progress of our great land. Now, if you will give us down 
the front in eastern Ontario an opportunity to get cheap power such as 
Toronto and western Ontario have, from Niagara falls, and as Montreal 
has, we will increase our industrial activities. At present we are starv- 
ing for want of power, and our industries are handicapped, lagging, 
going to sleep. We want something of this kind to waken us up so that 
we can take part in the industrial development of our country; and it is 
only by developing the water-powers, that we can contribute to the 
general welfare of the whole, and that this nation can be built up. I 
ask you whether it is fair that one boat, taking 3^ minutes of each day, 
for only four months of the year, with 250 or 300 passengers on board 
for summer amusement, for the pleasant pastime of 'shooting the 
chutes,' should block the whole industrial development of eastern On- 
tario ? (Great laughter and applause) . 

Chairman Gibbons: I am sure we are all delighted to hear this. 
We would have been aU broken-hearted if this meeting had not gone on. 
(Hear, hear and laughter). 

Mr. H. a. Stewart, K.G. : I am delighted to come on at a stage when 
this meeting is in such good temper. Mr. Maclaren has set forth our 
case so very well that it leaves very little for me to say. I appear here 
to-day on behalf of the Light and Power Department of Brockville. If 
you look up the records of municipal ownership you will find that we 
stand well to the front in this direction. We have dealt with our public 
utilities in a broad public way, and in that spirit we desire to approach 
this Commission to-day. The importance of power has been reahzed by 
us. We have reviewed the situation, and have had the advice of 
experts, and they tell us that our supply of power must come 
from the St. Lawrence. There are other sources, but they are not 
reliable, they are erratic, and we have been referred to the St. 
Lawrence for our sources of power. The proposition now before you, 
sir, will give us the power of which we are in so much need. We also 
appreciate the singular advantage of the St. Lawrence; it would be 
strange indeed if, living there, we did not. We love the sight of the 
passing ships and the commerce of the river, and we would be the very 



814 COMfflSSION OF CONSERVATION 

first to rush to its defence in case of attack; but, we submit, after a 
careful examination of this proposition, after going over the ground, 
that it will be found that navigation is not impeded, but on the contrary 
that it is helped. Now, we have realized that this power has simply been 
wasting there, and we believe that the proper way to conserve it is to 
develop it; and that is what we ask. We have been impatient of the 
delay. We find in western Ontario there has been development, and 
nothing on our part. We are not asking for the pledging of public credit 
or the spending of public money; we simply ask that the Company 
that have the money and the faith to do the work be permitted to do it, 
and give us this power. I do not think a better proposition, from a 
public standpoint, could be submitted to any body of men. Now, we 
are very much in earnest about this. There are eighteen or twenty of 
us here representing the business interests of BrockviUe, and we are sure 
that these will receive sympathetic consideration. We say that naviga- 
tion will be improved; that natural resources will be conserved; and 
that if this is carried through, with proper regulations and restrictions, 
we will have an example of international harmony and co-operation 
that will be very acceptable to all concerned. (Hear, hear and 
applause) . 

Me. Hutcheson : I am glad to realize that much of the work that 
might have fallen on me has been so well done by those who have spoken 
before me, and that I may save myself a good deal of labour. I think I 
can dig up a few things that have not yet been said, or not fully said. 
One suggestion was made which raised a question in one's mind as to its 
being a case of eastern Ontario against western Ontario. (Hear, hear). I 
say they are in partnership. It is not a case of the west robbing the east 
so much as a case of the east helping the west by development of itself; 
for if we can develop the industries and make the goods and sell them, 
we must buy goods, and we will thus increase the traffic, the commerce 
of the country in every direction, and the whole commonwealth must 
thrive. (Hear, hear). The question of the consideration of scenic 
beauties is a matter which must not be left out; it is a matter 
which must be given its proper concern; it is a matter which 
must be given due weight, but not over due weight. I say that this 
country, this continent, cannot afford to neglect the development of its 
natural resources yet. We are a growing country and a growing con- 
tinent. Our watchword is the future, not dwelling on the glories of the 
past, not admiration of natural scenery, but the development of the re- 
sources which we have, so that we may grow up to be two of the great 
nations living in harmony side by side. And if it comes to a question 
of scenic beauty, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, let me ask you what ap- 
peals most to the hard headed men who love to take a tour on the money 
they have earned by their own labour ? Do they not like to see an un- 



HEARING BEFORE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION 315 

dertaking, which has resulted from the harnessing of the natural re- 
sources of the world, and which has resulted in the making of money? 
Do they not like to see how man has triumphed over the powers of nature 
and has accomplished a result which may develop the nation? Give 
the other consideration its due importance, but do not overlook that 
consideration, because I submit it is a very important matter. Those 
thrifty millionaires from the United States, when they take their two 
weeks summer jaunt, and pass down the St. Lawrence, and see that 
mighty dam, and see a sheet of water falling over it, and heed and learn 
what has been accomplished, will in the years to come enjoy that much 
more than "shooting the chutes,' as my friend Mr. Maclaren has said. 
Then as to the question of natural resources. I am a great believer 
in the conservation of our natural resources; but it is so easy to draw a 
herring across the scent in a matter of that kind. Natural resources 
are of no avail, of course, unless developed. Now, when you develop a 
coal-mine or a gold-mine, after you have disembowelled that mine what 
have you left? A useless hole in the ground. Its contents are never 
replaced, you have exhausted its utility. After you have stripped the 
forest of its timbers, many, many years must elapse, before you ever 
have a forest fit to strip again. But here we have a power which 
merely needs harnessing, when it will go on to aU eternity, and until we 
harness it, it is running to waste so far as material advantage is con- 
cerned. Now, who can suggest that when we farm out to two com- 
panies the right to develop and use that power we are giving away any 
natural resource? I say, who can suggest that, especially in view of 
the fact that it is to be a fair divide as to the power produced, and that 
each nation will share equally in that? 

Coming back to our own little town of Brockville, on behalf of 
which I speak to-day, we do really need some help along material 
lines. We have a population of some 9,000 people. We have a 
pretty little town. We wiU spend money up to the limit of what 
we have, to make our town nice to look at, and a nice town to visit; 
but our tax-rate has crept up in the last nine years from 19 to 25 
mills. Even the natural increase of population has been denied to 
us, because young men go where the field is wider, where they can 
grow up with the growing country and measure up with their surround- 
ings. We cannot keep them or hope to keep them unless we get some- 
thing which will induce them to remain at home. Now, gentlemen, 
surely many things will have to be said as against this proposition before 
they outweigh some things which myself and our other friends have said, 
and I can only hope that the procedure which we follow in the courts 
will to some extent be adopted here, and that in so far as new matter 
may arise from the objectors to the scheme, that some of us at least may 
have an opportunity to make some brief reply. 



316 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

Mr. R. a. PBiNaLE, K.G. : It is very good natured of you to listen to 
me for a few inoments. I will promise not to detain you many moments 
coming as I do from the little factory town of Cornwall, representing as 
I do the Cornwall Board pf Trade and the corporation of the town of 
Cornwall. It is hardly necessary for me to say to you that we are a unit in 
favour of some scheme by which the Long Sault rapids may be harnessed 
and power may be developed. We have been touched a little with the 
microbe of power. A few years ago, after great opposition, a little power 
was developed, as you will see on that map, (indicating) what is 
known as Sheek Island dam. Even that little bit of power has been of 
enormous advantage to our community. Our population has increased; 
we have factories to-day — cotton-mills, paper-mills, and so on — em- 
ploying some thousands of people. We have reached our limit. We 
find at our door a power, probably the greatest on the continent of 
America, awaiting the men who have confidence and capital to tackle 
its development. I am not going to dilate on that question, because 
I conceive from your utterances, Mr. Chairman, that you are here 
to-day largely as an advisory body, to deal largely with the general 
principle, as to the feasibility of the development of this power. You 
are not here to-day to meet the technical objection in regard to 
whether this plan is sufiicient to protect all interests. I conceive — I 
may be wrong — ^that you are dealing broadly with the general principle: 
Is it feasible to grant or recommend the development of this power? 
Will the development of this power in any way affect navigation? I 
am a layman; I am not a mariner, nor am I an engineer; but I have 
lived on the banks of that river all my life, and it does not take a mar- 
iner, and it does not take an engineer to say, that it is absolutely feasible, 
and what has been pointed out to-day by the engineer, Mr. Rickey, 
is absolutely right, and that when that improvement is made, the naviga- 
tion of the St. Lawrence river is improved to an enormous extent. 
(Hear, hear and applause). I did not take this position to-day: I took 
it years ago — ^that what our Government should have done in order to 
assist the navigation of the St. Lawrence river — and anyone who wishes, 
can look and find it on record — was to put in on the north side of that 
river, just below Sheek Island dam, one large lift-lock by which steamers 
could have climbed up the river instead of going through four or five 
locks, into Sheek Island dam, and in a matter of three-quarters of an 
hour passed along the Sault rapids, and gone about their business to 
the west. So it is no new matter with me. I have been convinced for 
years that that would be a great assistance to navigation. I repeat that 
it is not necessary to be an engineer or a mariner: any man who knows 
that location cannot come to any other conclusion, than that with a 
development such as that, the interest of navigation in this country 
will be improved. (Hear, hear). 



HEARING BEFORE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION 317 

I have heard technical objections here and technical objections 
there in regard to this matter. But even if you gentlemen, after hear- 
ing the representations made here, advise on the general principle that 
this scheme is feasible, if the engineers of the Dominion Government 
and the engineers of the American Government, with all their expert 
knowledge and care, come to the conclusion that there is any difficulty 
in the way of navigation, when they get down to the details which must 
be gone into, surely the Governments are not bound by your report. 
You are here simply to act in that advisory capacity, and not to spend 
year in and year out in going into details. I am getting grey hearing 
about this proposition. We have been looking forward to it for years. 
As Mr. McCarthy has properly said, it is not our heritage, nor is it the 
heritage of the United States; it is a joint heritage, and one that we are 
proud of. It has been placed right at our doors in that portion of 
Ontario and of northern New York for a purpose, and I believe the pur- 
pose is to give to us that industrial life which will build up eastern On- 
tario and northern New York. (Hear, hear) . What do we see to-day 
at Massena ? A little town almost opposite the town of Cornwall, a few 
years ago a "Sleepy Hollow." To-day, with that small amount of power 
which has been carried from the St. Lawrence across to the Grass river, 
you see an enormous industry employing hundreds of men, and many of 
our Canadian people over there in the employment of that company. 
(Hear, hear). What did we see in Cornwall? We saw come to our 
town a representative of one of the largest industries that is to-day in the 
Dominion of Canada to look into the matter of power. I personally 
went with the engineer over the whole district, and unfortunately, he had 
to report that the bringing in of an additional quantity of water from 
Hoople creek into Sheek island would be such an enormous expense that 
they could not consider it; and that company located in another section, 
and is to-day employing upwards of a thousand people. (Hear, hear.) 
Again, we saw the Singer Sewing Machine Company come to our town 
ready to locate. We could not give them power. Subsequently they 
went to St. Johns, Quebec. Is it any wonder, Mr. Chairman, that we, 
as a town come to you and say to you, " Have we not had delay enough ? 
Has not this matter been presented to you for the past four years ? Are 
you not now convinced as to the general principle? Are you not now 
convinced sufficiently to report that you believe the interests of naviga- 
tion will not be affected, and leave the matter in the hands of our Govern- 
ment?" (Hear, hear). I am willing to submit to the men who are in 
control in Ottawa, no matter what party they belong to. (Hear, hear). 
I believe they are honest men, and will look after and preserve the interests 
of our Canadian people, just as the American Government will look after 
and conserve the interests of the American people. Pardon me, Mr. 
Chairman and gentlemen, for trespassirg on your time, but this matter 



318 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

is very much at heart with the people of eastern Ontario. (Hear, hear, 
and applause.) 

Mayor Evanson : (Prescott.) Gentlemen, and members of the 
Waterways Commission, I do not appear here with any brief, as some of 
the gentlemen who were opposing the proceedings this afternoon seem 
to have. I am here as an ordinary citizen, one whom the citizens of 
the good town of Prescott saw fit to elect as their mayor at the recent 
election. I can tell any of you gentlemen who have not been there that 
Prescott is blessed with the best shipping advantages of any town 
in eastern Ontario. 

A Voice: Except Brockville. 

Mayor Evanson: I bar no town whatever. (Laughter). I say 
Prescott is blessed with the best shipping facilities of any town in eastern 
Ontario, and I wish to show that its progress is retarded simply from the 
fact that we lack cheap power. You know, as well as I do, that any town 
is counted dead that is not seeking cheap power. That is what Prescott 
is seeking to-day, and that is the reason the citizens of Prescott asked me 
to appear here as their representative. Gentlemen, I assure you that 
if Prescott had the power it would be in a position to obtain if this 
scheme is carried out, that in ten years' time, in place of seeing the small 
town of some 3,500 inhabitants we have to-day, you will see a city of at 
least 10,000 inhabitants. I am sure that the inducements of the town 
of Brockville are all right, and that you will see there a city of 50,000. 
(Hear, hear). This is what we lack; we lack power. We have the two 
greatest railroads on the continent running into that town — the Grand 
Trunk and the Canadian Pacific. We have practically communication 
with the Central Vermont and the New York Central on the opposite side 
of the river. We have every boat that passes from the west, from Fort 
William and Duluth, to Montreal, passing by our doors. Gentlemen, 
why not place us in the position to ask those empty barges as they are 
returning west, to call into our port and take on a cargo that we will be 
able to manufacture in that town if we have this power? (Hear, hear). 
I can assure you, gentlemen, that every citizen in the eastern part of the 
province of Ontario, especially in the counties of Leeds and Grenville, 
are strongly in favour of the development of power at the Long Sault. 
(Hear, hear). The only objection that can arise, as I see, is that of 
spoiling the scenic beauty. That will be presented to you by the Ri- 
chelieu & Ontario Navigation Company. Gentlemen, I say that in less 
than five years the Richelieu & Ontario Navigation Company will be 
advertising those dams as the greatest attraction that they have between 
Toronto and Montreal. (Hear, hear). In place of advertising the 
Sault rapids they will advertise those dams as their greatest attraction. 
Why, to-day the trip from Prescott to Montreal grows monotonous, 
because they have too many rapids. (Laughter) It is nothing but a 



HEARING BEFORE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION 319 

series of rapids. You get so tired of it you would rather travel by rail. 
Let us cut out one of the rapids, and give us power; that is what the 
eastern country wants. (Laughter and loud applause) . 

Mr. Henrt Holgate, G.E.: About two years ago the St. Lawrence 
Power Company submitted their proposition to me for enquiry and advice 
and I must say that I treated it with a great deal of respect, knowing 
that we had to deal with the river St. Lawrence, and recognizing that 
the scheme was one which would be either an injury or a tremendous 
benefit, owing to the fact that it was not a local scheme. I did not con- 
sider it a local scheme as it dealt with the channel of the St. Lawrence 
river, which is important to the whole of Canada. I looked into the 
matter in connection with Mr. Rickey, and I can say that I conscien- 
tiously studied it, with the result that I came to a conclusion, after 
certain modifications which Mr. Rickey adopted, that the scheme as it 
stands to-day generally is quite practicable. I have taken full oppor- 
tunity of discussing the general features of the whole scheme with the 
engineers of the Dominion Government, both individually and together, 
and the result has been that those gentlemen have come to our views of 
the matter; that their apparent opposition at the start was from lack of a 
clear understanding of the conditions, which have been explained to 
them since, and which has made them practically advocates of the 
scheme, instead of opponents. The question is a very important one, 
and as I said, cannot be considered as a local one. It must be 
considered in connection with the whole of the St. Lawrence, which 
is the most important waterway we have in Canada, and I could not 
bring myself to advocate anything that I thought would be detrimental 
to that route. I speak as a Canadian, particularly as a Montrealer, and 
from the engineering point of view, I can see nothing but good could 
come out of the scheme which may be developed at the Long Sault ra- 
pids. I am looking for the time when all the rapids on the St. Lawrence 
river will be treated in the same way (Hear, hear) and when our naviga- 
tion will be in that river-bed and not through the canal system. 
The enlargement of the system of canals is not far from us, and 
the time is right upon us at present, to study the river St. Lawrence, 
with regard to the extension of such a system as is proposed here 
over the whole river from lake Ontario to the harbour of Montreal. 
I think my good old friend, Mr. John Kennedy, who was for a 
time Chief Engineer of the Harbour of Montreal, and is now their 
consulting Engineer, will agree, that with regard to any interference 
there might be with the harbour of Montreal, it is totally out of 
the question; and if I might quote some remarks that Mr. Kennedy 
made a few days ago, if anybody said it were impracticable to do 
this work on the St. Lawrence river such as is shown, it is because he — 
that is the person objecting — could not do it. The works are practic- 



320 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

able. I am perfectly sure that when Mr. Kennedy has sufficiently 
studied the situation, he himself will endorse the plan; and any objec- 
tions that he may have at the present time — I say it with deference to 
Mr. Kennedy — have been because he has not had sufficient time to look 
into all the details. Now, I am not bothering myself very much with 
details at the present moment; I am dealing with the general scheme 
and I have no hesitation in saying that the general scheme is perfectly 
feasible. As a Canadian I want to see it adopted, and in the interests 
of the St. Lawrence channel I hope some day to see a general scheme 
from lake Ontario to Montreal adopted. (Hear, hear and applause). 

Mr. H. G. Kellet,G.E. : Mr. Chairman and gentlemen,myconnection 
with thisis purely on technicalgrounds. Though I am Chief Engineerof the 
Grand Trunk, I appear here in my strictly personal capacity. My entire 
life has been devoted to engineering work. I have worked in some of 
the largest rivers in this country. In this connection, and in the devel- 
opment of this project, I went over the entire field with Mr. Rickey from 
lock 20 to lock 21, over Sheek island up past Groil island, down the Long 
Sault, and down to Cornwall. I have examined not only the map upon 
the wall but all of Mr. Rickey's profiles, measurements, and the methods 
of his calculations. I have not attempted to go through the voluminous 
calculations incident to a study of that character. It would take weeks. 
It has already been calculated by several specialists, men of inter- 
national reputation. I have looked at Mr. Rickey's methods of com- 
putation, his methods of study, and I must say he has used the most 
advanced and the most scientific methods that are familiar to us, or 
known to us to-day. These calculations being checked and borne out 
by the eminent engineers mentioned, would convince me that his 
results as shown to me are correct. These results remove from my 
mind any doubt as to the perfect feasibility of this plan. The locations 
selected for the dams are solid ledge rock. Their stability is unques- 
tionable. It is a mere question of design of the dam; and when a cor- 
poration will put millions into a project, they will certainly not save 
thousands in the design of a dam of that character. I understand Mr. 
Kennedy to have said that no man can tell what ice will do in a river 
like the St. Lawrence, That is true ; but under no condition established 
by these dams can the ice gorges be worse than they have been in the 
St. Lawrence at that point. They will in fact be better. To establish 
the dam further down the stream, as was suggested, would place it in 
a very bad bottom. The history of the Cornwall bridge, known to 
every gentleman in this room, is sufficient answer to the judgment dis- 
played by the engineers of this Company in moving up-stream to where 
they got solid rock. Some questions that have been brought up are, 
"the results down-stream from the breaking of a dam." If the entire 
Water impounded back of those dams were suddenly transferred to the 



HEAEING BEFORE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION 321 

reach of the river between the foot of the dam and Cornwall, it would 
raise the water a trifle over twelve feet. If that water were suddenly- 
transferred to the stretch from the foot of the dam to the foot of lake St. 
Francis, it would raise the water about six and three-eighths inches; and 
if it were continued from that point to the foot of lake St. Louis, it would 
raise the water about 3f inches. I certainly can see no harm due to 
the breaking of the proposed dam. But such an assumption is absurd; 
it could not happen; no great dam of that kind would go out all at once. 
If it went out piecemeal the results of those rises would be distributed 
piecemeal down the river. As I say, I went into the matter without 
prejudice. Had I found anything in Mr. Rickey's general plans that I 
could have condemned, I would have said so. Had I found anything 
that would have been detrimental to the interests of Montreal I never 
would have been here. I can see from this only the saving of energy 
of over half a million horse-power per year, to the development of in- 
dustries on both sides of the St. Lawrence river, and for many miles in 
either direction. I therefore came before this CJommission to say that 
as an engineer I believe the project is entirely feasible, that it is en- 
tirely safe, and that any small objections that can be raised as to the 
resulting currents can easily be taken care of by the engineers. (Hear, 
hear, and applause). 

Mr. McCarthy: About the ice conditions, I suppose there are 
facilities in existence to-day which will break up ice ? 

Mr. Kellet: Oh yes. 

Mr. McCarthy: Gould they be utilized in that channel, assuming 
the dams were there ? 

Mr. Kelley: Yes, safely, where they could not be used in the swift 
currents of to-day. 

Senator Derbyshire : Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of the Com- 
mission, the one thing we need in the town of Brockville, and have 
needed for years, is cheap power. We have been looking in every di- 
rection for this power, and after hearing our engineers' report, and after 
having had a large number of our citizens visit this locality, we have 
come to the conclusion that our chief power must come from that loca- 
lity, and that if we can get this power developed it will be of vast interest 
to us in the town of Brockville. It will cheapen the cost of power in that 
district, and put us in the position to hold the factories we have at the 
present time, and to get other large factories and concerns there, on 
account of the situation. As you know, sir, our town occupies the most 
beautiful situation on the continent to-day; at the foot of the Thousand 
islands, on the ever-famous St. Lawrence, the most beautiful place in all 
the world for scenery and for development. Our citizens are all anxious 
that we should develop, and we can only do so by having cheaper power 
so as to retain and increase the development of our factories. We 

31 



322 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

want this power on account of its simplicity, on account of its clean- 
ness, on account of its ease of handling in all our factories, small as well 
as large, and I am sure that it will be for the advantage not only of our 
country but for the United States as well, that this power should be devel- 
oped there. I cannot see why a little technical objection should be 
raised by other parts of the country that have cheap power to-day, 
lest we would go in competition with them in our manufactures and 
in our development, and with the resources that we can so easily 
utilize in our locality. I feel that the Commission would be justified 
in recommending this scheme as far as they possibly can, because it has 
been shown by the engineers that it is feasible, and there is no reason in 
the world why we should not have cheap power in Brockville as long as 
this is so easily obtained. We have the capital at the back of this 
Company that is ready to develop it, so that we feel safe in recommend- 
ing this scheme to the Commission and to the country. (Applause). 
Mr. G. G. Foster, K.C. : Mr. Chairman and gentlemen. Before 
the case is closed before this Commission I desire on behalf of the 
St. Lawrence Power Company to say a word to the Commission and 
one to the gentlemen interested in this project. When I was first 
approached in connection with this matter, and retained Mr. McCarthy 
to act with me, we were approached as lawyers and as citizens of Canada 
and asked to join hands in the development of something that wp,s — so 
far as Canada is concerned — useless at that time. Because we made 
that association we neither lost nor sank our interest in things that 
were Canadian; and I want to tell this Commission, and those gentle- 
men who are opposing us to-day, that we still retain that same interest. 
We are not prepared, any one of us — or the men associated with us — ^to 
remain for one single moment connected with the St. Lawrence Power 
Company, after any engineer, or any man who is in a position to do it, 
shows us that we are going to do one of the many things that have been 
charged against this proposition. (Hear, hear) . We have been assured, 
not by ordinary, but by the most eminent engineers in the United 
States and Canada — and we have had the best expert advice that 
money would enable us to get — that none of the difficulties exist that 
are said to threaten this project, and it is because we believe that this 
petition should be granted that we appear before your Commission to 
urge it. 

We are one with the gentlemen here representing the shipping in- 
terests, in not wanting the shipping interest of Canada or the St. Law- 
rence river injured; but we do not believe that the development of Can- 
ada should be retarded in order that a few tourist tickets may be sold 
from some point in America to Montreal. We do not believe that this 
one single rapid, among the many rapids there are in the river, should 
remain as it is to-day in order that the little business that is represented 



HEARING BEFORE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION 323 

there might be transacted. So far as the great question of the shipping 
interests of Canada is concerned, we believe we are not going to injure 
them. If we did not believe that, we would not be here. I say, Mr. 
Chairman, we believe in the justice of the case that we put before you. 
We beHeve that this power can be developed so as to be a blessing 
not only to the places that have been represented here to-day, not 
only to the parts that have been mentioned, but that it can be a blessing 
to the great city of Montreal. There we have a population increasing by 
leaps and bounds, with no power except the limited power that is 
developed there to-day, and the power that is brought from Shawinigan, 
which is in the hands of a monopoly which is grinding down the people 
of that great city — (Hear, hear). A monopoly that can best be met by 
such a development as we propose. 

Mr. Beck asks what I am going to do. We are going to have op- 
position to them. 

Hon. Mr. Beck: How long? 

Mr. Foster: I do not say how long, but we will take good care 
that the new contract which is made with the city of Montreal, is not tied 
up as are some of those of the province of Ontario. I say that Montreal 
is not here as a unit to oppose this plan; Montreal is not a unit against 
this proposition. A few men interested in the Light, Heat & Power 
Company, a few men, including lawyers and others, who are interested in 
the Street Railway Company, a few men that are interested in some of 
the shipping companies, think that it is going to injure them ; but the 
great population of the city of Montreal, I beHeve, is in favour of this 
proposition. I believe that it will benefit Montreal, and because as a 
citizen of Montreal so I believe it, I give it as an additional reason to 
urge you to grant this petition. (Hear, hear, and applause.) 

Mr. McCarthy: Mr. Chairman, I do not propose to try your 
patience any longer. I desire simply to say that I hand you a list of 
the gentlemen who have come from Brockville, Cornwall, and Prescott 
to be present and advance their views, representing the locality from 
which they come. 

Chairman Gibbons: Then do I understand that there are no 
other gentlemen to address the meeting in favour of the proposition? 

Mr. H. a. Calvin (Kingston) : I understand the speakers on that 
side are finished ? 

Chairman Gibbons: Yes. 

Mr. Calvin: At this stage I would like to say that at the last 
hearing of this scheme the Calvin Company, through myself, objected 
to the scheme because it would shut our rafts out of the river. I now 
want to say that the Long Sault Development Company have agreed 
to bear the loss incidental to our barging timber through the canal, 
and so we withdraw the objection. (Hear, hear, and applause). 



324 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

Chairman Gibbons: Mr. Beck, do you wish to address us? 

Hon. Adam BicK: The Government has a representative here. 

Mr. Hilliard: You prefer going on, Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman Gibbons: We will go on till six o'clock, or half past six. 

Mr. Hilliard: Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the Waterways 
Commission, I was very glad to hear the representative of the pro- 
moters of this scheme say that they were ready to pay for the power 
that would be developed there; that they recognized that there was 
no ownership in the water. I wish to call the Commission's attention to 
the fact, that in reference to Canada, the St. Lawrence Power Company 
have taken the very opposite course to what the Long Sault Develop- 
ment Company did in the United States. I fancy that if the Long 
Sault Development Company had proffered their Bill to Congress in 
the first instance they would have been sent back, and their efforts 
would not have been recognized until they had acquired, by legislation 
or otherwise, the rights that are recognized to exist in the state of New 
York. And so they wisely attended upon the Senate and Legislative 
Assembly of the state of New York, and obtained the requisite legisla- 
tion to give to them the rights and powers possessed by the state of 
New York, and that was embodied in the Act of the state of New York; 
which is now known as Chapter 355.* By looking over that Act you will 
find that when Congress — ^the national parliament which has the legisla- 
tive jurisdiction over International waters, or rather, I should say, ad- 
ministrative power — would grant them such and such authority, then 
the representative body of the state of New York was to convey to them 
the ownership in the bed of the rivers, and the ownership, so to speak, in 
the proprietary rights that exist in the state of New York in the waters 
flowing over their properties. Now, we stand upon the same footing 
exactly. The highest court in the British Dominions decided in the year 
1898 — and that decision is reported in the English Reports of Appeal 
Cases 1898 at page 700 — ^in a submission by the Dominion Government, 
representing on the one part the Dominion and on the other part the 
three provinces of Ontario, Quebec and Nova Scotia — . 

Chairman Gibbons: I do not want to shut off any discussion, but 
you surely do not expect this Commission to settle the question of juris- 
diction. I am quite familiar with the decision as to proprietary rights; 
but that is not the point. It is necessary, in dealing with International 
waters, to have an International Commission to deal with the Inter- 
national questions. We are merely an advisory Board. We cannot 
take away your rights if you have them, nor are we a court to establish 
anybody's rights if they exist; so I think this is hardly the place to 
thresh that out. 



*See Appendix I, page 39. 



HEARING BEFORE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION 325 

Mr. Hilliard: It seems to me that it is very foolish, from a com- 
mercial point of view, to ask those rights from a Government that has 
not those rights to give. 

Chairman Gibbons: That is a matter for this Company. They 
may not get any rights; but all the Commission have to do is to see 
whether there is any reason, from an International standpoint, why 
those rights should not be given. 

Mr. Hilliard: One of the reasons is that the Government of Can- 
ada have not the power to grant those rights. 

Chairman Gibbons: Well, they will have to take care of that. 

Mr. McCarthy: Are you going to get this Commission to hold 
that ? (Laughter.) 

Mr. Hilliard: We say this that the proceedings in the United 
States were proper; they were right; they went to the Government that 
had the right to give those rights. Now, it is, so to speak, going "cart 
before the horse " in Canada. It may be they will never get the rights 
from the Ontario Government; it may be they will; but what we say, 
speaking on behalf of the Government, is that anypower that is developed 
from the water of the river St. Lawrence belongs as the proprietary 
rights of the province of Ontario, as was decided in that case. We fur- 
thermore say that the ownership in the soil, in the bed of the river, to the 
International boundary, the title is in the province of Ontario, that was 
also decided in that case; and therefore until these questions are settled, 
it is absolutely useless to go on with this proceeding. Even in that case 
it was assumed that the Parliament of Canada, might, so to speak — 

Chairman Gibbons : I must rule you out of order in that discus- 
sion. We cannot settle these questions of jurisdiction. There may be 
a question between the Dominion and the Province as to who has these 
rights. There is a place to settle that; it is not in the Queen's hotel 
but in a court, at Ottawa or somewhere else. 

Mr. Hilliard: We simply wish to protest at this time, and 
as long as it is recorded we have discharged our duty to the Province, 
and have not allowed this Commission to go on and make reports while 
we sit back. 

Chairman Gibbons : It is quite right that you should make the 
protest, but an argument would do no gaod. 

Mr. James White: I appear here on behalf of the Commission of 
Conservation. At the last meeting of the Commission a memorandum 
was prepared and I was instructed to deliver it to this Commission at 
its meeting here to-day. 



326 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

Ottawa, February 7, 1910 

To the members of the International Waterways Commission: 

Gentlemen: 

I have the honour to refer to the communication of your Secretary, 
under date of Jan. 11, 1910, and to communicate herewith the views 
of the Executive Committee of the Commission of Conservation in regard 
to the application of the St. Lawrence Power Company now before you. 

This subject has been considered by the Executive Committee, 
consisting of Hon. Senator Edwards, Mr. E. B. Osier, M.P., Dr. Henry 
S. B61and, M.P., Mr. F. D. Monk, M.P., Dr. J. W. Robertson, Hon. Mr. 
Haszard, Premier of Prince Edward Island, Mr. J. F. Mackay and my- 
self. The views herein expressed represent the unanimous opinion of 
the Committee. 

The proceeding is understood to relate to the application of the St. 
Lawrence Power Company, now pending before the Dominion Govern- 
ment, for leave to construct dams across the St. Lawrence river at and 
near the Long Sault rapids. As part of the proposed works, it is in- 
tended to erect an extensive power development plant upon Barnhart 
island (an American island) and upon the United States mainland and a 
much smaller plant on the Canadian mainland. Examination of these 
proposals discloses a variety of important considerations. 

(1) It is quite possible that serious damage would result from the 
construction of the works. Engineers have, it is true, given an opinion 
that there is no probability of such damage. On the other hand, the 
opinion of the residents along the shore, and the most experienced naviga- 
tors and observers is apparently almost unanimous in holding that the 
probability of serious damage is very strong. With all respect to the 
engineers who have given their opinions, it is submitted that the ques- 
tion is not an engineering problem, and that no data exist for the form- 
ation of a reliable engineering opinion. No engineer can tell where br 
how ice will be formed, when in our rigorous climate the flow of a mighty 
river is interfered with. It is a fact that slight interference has in former 
years caused great damage from floods and ice jams. The possible total 
stoppage of the flow of the river as a consequence of the works contem- 
plated is a contingency which cannot be said to be impossible or remote. 
Such a stoppage would cause enormous datnage to private property and 
would imperil the Cornwall canal, which is an integral and essential part 
of the all-Canadian water route from lake Superior to the Sea. 

It does not appear necessary to express an opinion as to whether 
the weight of evidence or probability is in favour of the view expressed 
by the engineers, or that expressed by the residents of the locality who 
have intimate knowledge of the history of the river for many years past. 



HEARING BEFORE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION 327 

The fact that there is any — even the slightest — difference of opinion is 
a sufficient reason for condemning the proposal. No risk whatever 
should be incurred in a matter of such vital national importance. 

(2) The proposed diversion of water by the dam between the Long 
Sault island and Barnhart island, would take from the main navigable 
channel between Barnhart island and the U.S. mainland about 50 per 
cent, of its water. The effect of such a diversion of water from the 
navigable channel is impossible to estimate. It can, however, be stated 
with certainty, that the navigability of the channel would not be im- 
proved by such diversion. 

(3) The construction of the dams in question will result in com- 
pelling navigation (other than by the Cornwall canal) to follow a new 
route known as the South Sault channel. Experienced navigators are of 
the opinion that this route will be much inferior to that now followed. 

(4) The time will undoubtedly arrive in the history of Canada 
when deeper navigation upon the St. Lawrence will require to be pro- 
vided for by the Canadian (Jovernment. Should the works proposed by 
the St. Lawrence Power Company be constructed, the Government 
would no longer have a free hand in undertaking such an enterprise. 

The vested rights of the Company would require to be considered. 
Should the engineering plans adopted for improving and deepening na- 
vigation, interfere with or damage the works of the Company, which is 
reasonably certain to be the case, then the Government would be under 
the necessity of expropriating such works and paying an enormous sum 
by way of damages. Moreover, it is not clear that such expropriation 
could be had on any terms. The International character of the works 
might prove an insuperable bar, in which case the Govermnent would be 
without remedy, and the improvement of navigation could not be 
effected. 

(5) The proposed scheme of the St. Lawrence Power Company 
contemplates making use of the Canadian side of the river simply as a 
convenient landing place for a dam. A very slight examination of the 
plans of the Company is sufficient to make it clear that only a small por- 
tion of the contemplated expenditure will take place in Canada and only 
a very small proportion of the total power developed will be developed in 
Canada. 

(6) Looking at the whole scheme, it does not appear that any 
serious attempt can be made to show that Canadian requirements or 
Canadian interests are an appreciable factor in the plans of the Com- 
pany. The plans contemplate the absolute monopolization of the whole 
power available from the Rapids with a minimum consideration of Ca- 
nadian interests. 

(7) No market exists at the present time upon the Canadian side 
for the power proposed to be developed, or any appreciable portion 



328 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

thereof. When any large quantity of power is required in the territory 
tributary to the proposed works it can be otherwise provided. There is 
within the radius of economic transmission, abundant power available for 
development in purely Canadian territory without interfering with the 
St. Lawrence river in any way. 

(8) Should the time come when further power is demanded by 
Canadian interests and the placing of a dam across the St. Lawrence 
river is determined upon, one-half of the power to be generated thereby 
will belong of right to Canada and should be permanently retained for 
■Canadian use without any exception or qualification. 

(9) The suggestion that power can be generated on the American 
■side, or generated on the Canadian side and exported to the United 
States, and that thereafter, when it is required in Canada, the Company 
/;an be ordered to deprive its United States customers of the power and 
deliver it in Canada is regarded as being entirely illusory. If the power is 
used in the United States, industries will be built up and vested interests 
created thereby which it will be impossible to ignore. The attempt to 
-enforce an order for the delivery of power on the Canadian side after it 
had for years been exported or used in the United States would lead to 
serious difficulties. The case is not the same as if the Company and its 
works were wholly within Canada. If the Company desired to avoid or 
resist such an order, no means would exist of enforcing it without resort- 
ing to steps which would be a sure road to International complications. 

(10) Although not at present required for actual use, the power 
possibilities of the St. Lawrence at the Long Sault are very great and the 
time will undoubtedly come when they will be of enormous value. The 
present proposition contemplates giving away this valuable asset, with- 
-■out any substantial consideration, to a foreign company for its private 

financial advantage. 

(11) The obvious conclusion from the facts above recited, seems to 
ibe that the plain duty of Canada is to maintain her rights of ownership 
rand jurisdiction absolutely unimpaired and untrammelled. 

There are other considerations to be taken into account besides 
those of an exclusively material character. 

Canada is becoming increasingly known throughout the world as a 
land of great natural beauty. Its mountain, woodland and river scenery 
are unrivalled. Among all the beauty spots of the Dominion, perhaps 
the Long Sault and the romantic and exciting passage over its rapids 
are the most widely known and the most universally admired. Situ- 
.ated upon the greatest system of fresh- water navigation in the world, 
midway between the Great lakes and tide-water, the Long Sault is an 
important feature in the great panorama, which for generations has 
caused the St. Lawrence to be known throughout the world as the em- 
JjodtMent of the highest type of landscape beauty. Only the most ur- 



HEARING BEFORE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION 329 

gent and unavoidable necessity could furnish justification for diminish- 
ing in any degree the natural attractions of this great river. The des- 
truction of its finest feature without even the semblance of present ne- 
cessity would seem to be wholly indefensible. 

For the above reasons the Executive of the Commission of Con- 
servation desires to place on record its unqualified opposition to the 
proposition which is before you. 
I have the honour to be, 

Gentlemen, 

(Signed) CLIFFOrlD SIFTON 

Chairman 

Chairman Gibbons: It is a very easy thing to give judgment 
without the facts. 

Mh. Hutcheson: May I ask if the Conservation Commission took 
the evidence of witnesses pro and con before producing that ? 

Mr. Watson: Will the meeting now adjourn till after dinner or 
till to-morrow morning ? 

Chairman Gibbons: We want to suit your convenience. There 
are a great many gentlemen here, from a good distance. Mr. Lafleur 
and Mr. Smith, I think we ought to consult you, and Mr. Meredith, 
would you rather meet this evening ? 

Mr. R. C. Smith: I do not think I ought to mention my own con- 
venience at all. I should be pleased to stay over if necessary. 

Chairman Gibbons: It seems to me a matter that you have 
to take time to thresh out. We certainly want to get all the informa- 
tion we can from all sources. All we are seeking is light, and I certainly 
do not want the matter hurried. 

Hon. Mr. Beck: Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the Commis- 
sion; considerable stress has been laid upon the fact of the power 
requirements on the Canadian side in the vicinity of this development. 
Mr. McCarthy has gone so far afield as to say that the west is robbing 
the east. 

Mr. McCarthy: Oh, no! 

Hon. Mr. Beck: I beg your pardon, those are your words. 

Mr. McCarthy: I do not think so. 

Hon. Mr. Beck: Well, I know it. 

Mr. McCarthy: I am sure of it. (Laughter). 

Hon. Mr. Beck: Because the great development that is taking 
place in the west is robbing the east. It may surprise you to know 
that the development in the east has received considerable thought 
on the part of the Government and the Hydro-Electric Power Com- 
mission of Ontario. The municipalities lying between Cornwall and 
Brockville, Kingston, Prescott, and so on, down to Port Hope, have 



COMMISSION OP CONSERVATION 

made formal application to the Gommission for the supply of power. 
They have been offered a supply of power adequate to meet their 
requirements at a price somewhat lower than that suggested for the 
power that is to be sold by this Company. (Hear, hear). Sir Wilfrid 
Laurier, I am informed on good authority, has said that the cry for 
power in this district must be considered, and that is probably one of 
the reasons why a development of this nature should take place. Now, 
I take exception to the statement of the gentlemen from Cornwall 
and to Mr. McCarthy's, that the east has not been considered. I 
have a memorandum here of the different municipalities that have 
applied for power to the Commission; they are: Napanee, Durham, 
Cobourg, Oshawa, Port Hope, BowmanvUle, Deseronto, Belleville, King- 
ston, Prescott, Morrisburg, Picton, Cornwall, BrockviUe. These have 
applied for power to the Commission; and to confirm my statements, 
we have submitted prices to these different municipalities based upon 
a twelve-dollar power basis, not fifteen-dollar power. (Applause). And 
for the information of the gentlemen, and the Gommission, I may 
say that fifteen-dollar power is of no use whatever to the municipalities 
other than Cornwall; the cost is too high. We are bujing power at 
Niagara Falls at nine dollars, and if we are assured of nine-dollar power 
we will be able, as a Commission, and as a Government, to transmit 
that power to all the municipalities, meeting the development from 
Niagara Falls to Toronto midway, but not fifteen-dollar power. 
However, the contention that the west is being looked after and not 
the east, is not justified. Our work is not confined to the west, or the 
east, or the north, or the south. It covers the whole province of 
Ontario. Port Arthur is at the present time under contract with 
the Hydro-Electric Power Commission. Ottawa is receiving some 
benefit because of the Work and the undertaking on the part of 
the Commission; and the eastern district has been fully considered, 
and we contemplate completing a transmission line that will reach 
from Brockville in the east tp Windsor in the west. Therefore, your 
anxiety as a Commission must not be so very strenuous and severe 
from the feeling that these municipalities have been neglected and that 
their requirements have not been met. They have all had the price of 
power submitted, twelve-dollar power; fifteen-dollar power is not of 
sufficient importance to consider from that standpoint at all. As to 
rate regulation, we have not found in the province of Ontario that rate 
regulation solves the question. We have rate-regulation clauses in the 
contracts existing between those companies at Niagara Falls and the 
province of Ontario, Ijut they have been ineffective; we get no results 
whatever. 

Chairman Gibbons: I do not think the regulations that this Com- 
mission will suggest can be compared with your Ontario regulations. 



HEARING BEFORE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION 331 

If this Gommission does suggest regulations, I think the Government 
wiU have sense enough to provide properly for the regulation of rates. 
In your case your regulations did not amount to anything. 

Hon. Mr. Beck: That is the absolute conclusion of the Hydro- 
Blectric Commission and that must be carried out in whatever arrange- 
ments are made. We found ourselves at a disadvantage, and do 
now, at Niagara Falls. Although we are supposed to have an equal 
division of the power, two-thirds of the power is being shipped to the 
United States in addition to the full development in the United States, 
and we hope we will not have a repetition of that. 

Mh. McCarthy: Might I ask Hon. Mr. Beck when and how he 
offered power for Brockville ? 

Hon. Mr. Beck: I did not say Brockville. It is not on my 
list. I say there is a — 

Mr. McCarthy: Whether it is on your list or not, you read 
Brockville. 

Mr. Hutcheson: As town solicitor for Brockville I wrote two 
years ago for power to the Hydrc-Electric Commission, and to this day 
I have not received a r-^ply to my letter. 

Chairman Gibbons: That is a controversy between you and the 
Hydro-Electric Commission, and is not of interest here. 

Meeting adjourned at 6 o'clock p.m., until to-morrow, Wednes- 
day, February 9, 1910 at 10 o.clock a.m. 

Toronto, Wednesday, Feb. 9, 1910 

The Commission met in the Queen's hotel at 10 o'clock, with the 
same Commissioners and other persons present as at the opening 
session. 

In opening the meeting, Chairman Gibbons said: 
I think I ought to mention that in the Bill that was introduced 
into Congress, providing for the construction of this dam, a provision was 
inserted, similar to that in other Acts of the United States. This Bill 
was subject to a general Act to regulate dams across navigable rivers. 
The provisions are of the most stringent kind, for authority is given to 
the Secretary of War to deal with interests of navigation at all times. 
That is to say, all privileges granted are subject to navigation interests, 
and can be taken away at any time — I think I am not stating the law 
too strongly — and the Act of Congress brought in has also this provision, 
that the consent of the proper authorities on behalf of the Dominion 
Government is to be given to any work that is to be carried on. I 
certainly think that if anything is done, whatever decision is arrived at 
here, that it may be taken for granted that the Canadian authorities 
wiU not be less astute in protecting the interests of Canada than are the 



332 COMMISSION OP CONSERVATION 

Americans in the provisions which they made in these special Acts. 
I do not know who is now ready to proceed. 

Mr. King: I may have something to say specially in behalf of the 
Dominion Marine Association, but as the Richelieu & Ontario interests 
are specially represented, as Mr. Calvin has made arrangements which 
are satisfactory to him, and as several freighters have already expressed 
their views to a slight extent, there are other interests I would like to be 
heard, and would therefore ask Mr. A. A. Wright, of the Chicago Steam 
Navigation Company, to state his views. 

Me. a. a. Wright : Mr. Chairman, it is with a good deal of diffidence 
I come before you at this meeting, for the simple reason that I sat here 
yesterday very patiently, trying to the best of my ability to find out 
why we are here, and it is not quite clear to me yet. So far as I can 
learn from Mr. McCarthy's statements, and the so-called explanation 
by the engineer, Mr. Rickey, I have yet to see anything before this 
meeting which would justify any opinion being expressed by any one 
in the room, whether on the Commission or not. 

In the first place I would like to make clear to you, Mr. Chairman, 
the reason why the apparently generous offer that Was made by the 
vested interests was not taken advantage of. I Was present with other 
men representing those interests, when that proposition was discussed, 
and we decided, rightly or wrongly, that it was utterly impracticable, 
and I will give you the reason so that you can see whether we are wrong 
in our decision or not. As we understood it, the proposition put up to 
us was to send engineers to look over the ground and see if it were feas- 
ible to put a dam and power-plant across the St. Lawrence at that loca- 
tion without interfering with navigation; and we were asked to select 
engineers to express an opinion on that point. Now, the first difficulty 
that confronted us was, "What would we ask an engineer to do?" 
The only thing that had been presented to us for our consideration Was 
a sketch, which might as well have been made on the sand with a stick, 
simply showing that they proposed to put a dam here and a dam there, 
and a power-plant here and a power-plant there; but there was no 
statement showing us comparatively what the shore-line and the heights 
of water would be as to the shore on either side, respectively. They 
did not tell us what the heights of the dams were; what effect it would 
have on the currents when the discharges were going on over one or all 
plants; how it would affect the outlet of the Cornwall canal; whether 
the discharge was running strong at the north power-plant, or at the 
south power-plant, or at the middle power-plant, as the case may be. 
We simply were confronted with this, viz., that we had to have a choice 
of sending an engineer to see if he could evolve a plan which he thought 
would be practicable, which we could criticize, and if we pointed out 
that his plan was impracticable, and came before the Commission, we 



HEARING BEFORE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION 333 

would be told; " Oh, that is not the plan that is being adopted; your 
arguments do not affect this plan." It would be simply putting us in 
that absurd position, as we thought, taking for granted that engineers 
are competent to say whether those power-plants will interfere with 
navigation or not. I am quite willing to admit that engineers can some- 
times construct bridges that do not fall down, and dams that are not 
carried away; but sometimes they fail. It is not only in ancient history 
that we find engineers making bridges that collapse or dams that are 
carried away; it is of comparatively recent occurrence, and sometimes 
entailing serious loss of life. 

We have heard a good deal about broad views, and about looking 
at this matter in a narrow light. All the interests that were listened to 
yesterday, as far as I heard, came from points between Brockville and 
Cornwall, or in some cases as far as Montreal. Now, if you look at a 
map of Canada and the United States, it is a long way from Montreal 
to the Pacific ocean. The St. Lawrence waterway is without question 
the great regulator of freight rates from the west to the Atlantic ocean. 
No man can say what the requirements along the St. Lawrence water- 
way may be fifty years from to-day. To show you that, I do not need 
to go back more than ten years, when none of those freighters who have 
been heard from here were doing business on the St. Lawrence, and by 
the way, the consent which those freighters made to this improvement 
going on was only conditional — "if" so-and-so were done, and "if" 
the things they were told about were done, then they thought it would 
be a good plan. None of those gentlemen were interested on the St. 
Lawrence ten years ago. But you, gentlemen, as a Commission, are 
virtually trustees for future generations, and your recommendations 
to the respective Governments will be binding probably for all time. 
Because, while the United States Congress and the Dominion Government 
may have provisions inserted in an Act by which they could blow those 
works out of there if necessary, we all know that lawyers can have 
things drag along. This has been instanced no later than within the 
last few years with the franchise granted at the American Soo canal, 
which held up the United States Government, and has delayed construc- 
tion on the lock by the United States for two years, and has only very 
recently been put out of the way, so that the United States Government 
could proceed with the construction of a new lock at the Soo canal. 
We have also this that should be perfectly clear, that when we want 
some one to navigate steamers we do not go to the most competent 
engineers in the world, or even the most renowned ; we take men who 
are trained in navigating steamers. Now, the only men who are com- 
petent to express an opinion as to the effect of these works are pilots 
who earn their living piloting vessels in the currents of the St. Lawrence 
river; and I have yet to hear of one of those men who has stated that he 



334 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

believes that these dams or these power-plants will not be injurious to 
navigation. 

In his so-called explanation of the scheme yesterday, Mr. Rickey 
failed to tell us even the height of the dam which would be constructed. 
He did not even show on the plan the full length of the Cornwall canal. 
Personally, I do not know yet exactly how far it is from the head of 
the Cornwall canal to the foot of it — ^from an3rthing which was stated 
here. I believe it is something in the neighbourhood of eleven miles. 
We do not know what the fall will be from the outside of these power- 
plants to the foot of the Cornwall canal. We do not know what the 
speed of the current will be; what the speed will be if they are develop- 
ing 100,000 horse-power at one of their plants, and what it will be if 
they are developing 300,000, or the whole 500,000; what the effect 
will be on a boat if it came along with the north plant shut down, with 
no discharge current, or with the south plant shut down. All these are 
things, gentlemen, which I think should have been furnished to the 
public, if this meeting is to be asked to express either approval or dis- 
approval of this scheme. Now, so far as I can see, there seemed to be 
two sets of plans. There seemed to be this rough, crude sketch which 
is given to the rest of us, and another set of plans which seems to be 
before the Commission, on which apparently we are asked to express 
an opinion without having seen them. Now, I think that is manifestly 
unfair. It puts us in this position, that we must leave the whole ques- 
tion to the decision of the honourable Commission without being able 
intelligently to give you any assistance by the expression of opinion 
from men who are concerned in the interests of navigation. 

Now, so far as the letters are concerned which were read here 
yesterday, I must say that they took me by surprise. Those letters 
seem to have been obtained between the annual meeting of the Dominion 
Marine Association, held at Ottawa, on January 26th and 27th, when, 
amongst others, Mr. King and myself were appointed to appear on 
this deputation, and see what we could learn about the scheme, and see 
if we could get any information on which to base an opinion. Now, I 
have too much respect for the opinions of these gentlemen, if they 
expressed them honestly — ^that is, finally said that the plans were all 
right — ^to believe that they could have expressed them on the informa- 
ation which I have received; but why should they have received some 
different information, or different plans from the rest of the vessel 
interests of Canada ? That is what I cannot understand. 

All that I have to say to the Commission further, is that I am unalter- 
ably opposed to any works put in the St. Lawrence river in the hands of 
private interests whose only object is the earning of dividends. They can 
have no direct interest in navigation. It is all very well to say that they 
will bring industries into that small district in the vicinity of the rapids; 



HEARING BEFORE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION 335 

but that is a very small thing against the whole interests of the "West. 
Now then, just take for granted that permission is given to put those 
works there, and they are found to be prejudicial to navigation; that 
inside the next fifty years it is found necessary, in order to control freight 
rates for the western citizens of both the United States and Canada, 
to increase the facilities between lake Ontario and the Atlantic ocean 
for the passage of vessels, and we are met by a vested interest at the 
Long Sault. What could be the result ? We will hear the story of the 
widow and orphan whose funds are invested there in good faith, that 
cannot be interfered with; and navigation interests will simply have to 
put up with the results. Mr. Holgate expressed the opinion yesterday, 
that possibly at some future date all the rapids on the St. Lawrence 
might be covered with dams, and the stretches in the river between those 
dams used for the passage of ships, instead of canals. Now, as a man 
interested in the vessel business I would say that would be an ideal 
scheme. But, supposing that it is brought about, and that this scheme 
is in operation to flood out all the rapids and get the necessary dead 
water between the dams, it might tend to lower the head of this particular 
dam; and then we would be met with the objection, " Oh, you are tak- 
ing away our franchise; you are reducing the power which we have 
spent money to develop." There are a hundred and one questions like 
that which might come up, and which we have had no opportunity of 
considering, because, as far as any information which has been given to 
me at any of these meetings is concerned, we know absolutely nothing 
about the height of the banks along the St. Lawrence river between 
those stretches, or what the proposal in any shape or form is, except 
the crude sketch which was given here yesterday. That, as I have said, 
does not cover the whole length of the Cornwall canal even; it does not 
tell us the height of the dam, or anything in connection with it. I will 
not take any more of your time, gentlemen, because I think I have said 
enough to show you that we are in absolutely no position to give any 
intelligent opinion on the merits of this scheme. I thank you, gentlemen. 
Mr. John Kennedy, C.E.: Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I repre- 
sent the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal on this question; but I 
am not here on their behalf to oppose the damming of the St. Lawrence 
as a general proposition. I assume that that can be done wisely and 
safely in some way; but the plans placed before us do not give sufficient 
information to show whether the proposed dams are good and safe or not, 
and therefore only the general features of the scheme can be dealt with 
at present. The Harbour Commissioners of Montreal, in viewing the 
project as it will affect the navigation of this part of the St. Lawrence, 
and therefore the navigation interests of the whole St. Lawrence route, 
which is the great water transportation route of the Dominion, look 
upon the scheme as having placed public and private interests in in- 



336 COMMISSION OF 0ONSE3RVATION 

verted order. I understand, Mr. Chairman, that your Commission holds 
that the navigation interests of the St. Lawrence are paramount to 
other interests on the river. The Montreal Harbour Commissioners 
are strongly of the same opinion, and they therefore hold, that any 
proposition dealing with the St. Lawrence in so drastic a manner as the 
present, should be designed primarily as an improvement to navigation 
and only secondarily for the development of water-power. The present 
scheme is really conceived as a water-power proposition with a naviga- 
tion attachment, which is entirely wrong. The Harbour Commissioners, 
therefore, in holding that the project should be fundamentally dealt with 
as a navigation question, hold that the damming of the St. Lawrence at 
the Long Sault should be so done as to form part of a general scheme 
for the improvement of the navigation of the whole St. Lawrence 
on a great scale. 

It is proposed, and no doubt the proposition will be carried out, 
that the Welland canal be enlarged so as to briag lake vessels down 
through lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence to Prescott; but tl^e naviga- 
tion needs of the country are already so great, and are increasing so 
rapidly that obviously, and at no distant date, the capabilities of the St. 
Lawrence will have to be increased, and that on a great scale. That 
object will in all probability be attained not by making lateral canals but 
by canalizing the river as is now being done in nearly all large schemes 
for the improvement of river navigation. The improvement of the Ohio, 
for instance, is a work of that character, and it is being carried out by 
building dams and locks with navigable stretches between. That pro- 
ject involves the making of some fourteen or fifteen dams at an esti- 
mated cost of $93,000,000. A considerable part of the scheme is already 
carried out. The canalizing of the St. Lawrence presents fewer diflScul- 
ties and offers far greater advantages, The Long Sault will obviously 
form one of the most important sections of the great work, and the 
present proposition should, therefore, be considered in that light. 
Looked at in this way it will at once be seen that the damming of the 
Long Sault should be a Government work, as are all the works for the 
improvement of navigation on any scale, whether large or small, through- 
out the whole Dominion; and this policy has been followed from the 
building of the little ancient locks and canals for passing of row boats, 
down to the great modem lock at Sault Ste. Marie. The first Welland 
canal, built as it was by a company, forms a notable exception; but its 
working proved so unsatisfactory to owners, navigation interests and 
to the public interests that it had to be taken over by the Government. 
History taught a lesson, the value of which has not been lost, and since 
its time no navigation highway throughout the whole country has been 
placed under private control. The same sound and firmly established 
policy should surely be followed in dealing with the greatest waterway 



HEARING BEFORE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION 337 

of the northern part of the continent, if not the greatest navigation 
highway of the whole continent. Neither dam, gate nor lock under 
private control should be allowed to bar the International highway 
between the lake ports in the heart of the continent and the sea ports of 
the world. 

The United States to the south have rights and interests eqaal to 
those of Canada on the north, and it would obviously give occasion for 
International complications if the separate rights and interests of the two 
nations were in any way placed in the hands of any private company. 
I do not at all reflect on the excellent gentlemen who are at present 
promoting the Company; but we know perfectly well that they may sell 
out next week, or that the whole thing may pass into the hands of a merger 
of such great proportions as to be difficult to control. We know by 
watching the court records how exceedingly difficult it is to deal with 
those tremendous trusts, even with all the power of the American nation 
as prosecutor, and this project may be in such condition at any moment. 
The Harbour Commissioners, therefore, hold that any such project as 
the present should be a Government one and that if carried out it should 
be in such way as to best serve the interests of navigation. With this 
view they hold that the project should have provided a navigation 
channel on the International Boundaiy line, say a thousand feet in width, 
which, to carry the contemplated portion of the St. Lawrence, should 
be quite thirty feet in depth. It should be so made as to be an Inter- 
national navigation channel, having at least one lock on the Canadian 
side of the boundary line, and not merely a single lock away to the south 
and out of the Canadian line of travel. Of course there is no objection 
to a lock on the American side; it would be all the better for navigation 
interests if there were, because I assume that both nations could use 
either lock as is done at Sault Ste. Marie. But we hold that there should 
be one also on the Canadian side, for the same reasons that the Canadian 
Government felt impelled to build a lock on the Canadian side of the Soo, 
when there were locks already on the American side, which were perfectly 
free to us, and where our boats were treated on a perfect equality with 
those of American owners. The Canadian Government nevertheless 
felt it necessary to build a lock on its own territory, and to dredge ap- 
proaches at great cost and the same policy should apply, surely, to the 
St. Lawrence at the Long Sault. 

As regards the water-power. The Harbour Commissioners of 
Montreal are deeply interested in that also, because power developed 
at the Long Sault will benefit all the surrounding country, Montreal 
to the east, and other towns along the St. Lawrence to the west. It 
will promote industries which will benefit navigation interests and in- 
crease the trade of the whole country. The Commissioners, however, 
hold that the energy to be developed from half the water of the St. 

22 



338 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

Lawrence should be developed on the Canadian side, and wholly on the 
Canadian side; that it is entirely unsafe and unwise to allow that half 
to be developed outside of the country, and therefore out of the control 
of its Government. The province of Ontario has adopted the policy 
of putting large blocks of its water-power under a Hydro-Electric Com- 
mission. Quebec is doing the same. The Dominion Government has 
established a Commission for the Conservation of Resources. The power 
resources of the St. Lawrence river are tremendous, and ought to be so 
treated as to contribute in the very best and surest manner to the 
prosperity of the country. We hold that it cannot be safely done by 
allowing the Canadian share of that power to be developed on the Ameri- 
can side. 

The plan, so far as it can be understood, provides that a large chan- 
nel be made on the north side of Barnhart island, and certain power- 
houses built upon that; but we are told that only one-fifth of the power 
is intended to be developed on Canadian soil. This feature so far as can 
be judged, could without any great difficulty be reversed and the power- 
houses put on Canadian soil on the same channel ; and it should be done. 
Mr. Rickey, the Company's engineer, has been understood to have said 
that he cannot find sufiicient room to place them on the Canadian side 
between the channel and the Cornwall canal. I think we have Canadian 
engineers who could solve the problem of putting the power-houses on 
our own side of the channel without any difficulty at all. (Hear, hear, 
and applause). There is no difficulty about that. The Harbour Com- 
missioners, therefore, protest against the development of Canadian 
power on the American side, and they hold that the works necessary for 
the development of power so far as they are part of the works necessary 
for the improvement of navigation should be built and owned by the 
Government ; and that they should include a navigable channel and lock 
on the Canadian side under similar ownership and control. I do not 
pretend to say how the International questions which arise can best be 
dealt with, but it is safe to assume that a working arrangement can 
easily be arrived at between the two friendly Governments; and the 
uniform policy of the Canadian Government in keeping all such works in 
its own hands would facilitate the making of such an arrangement. 

The development of water-power on so great a scale is of course not 
intended to be carried out by the promoters as a work of benevolence. 
We are told that the estimated cost is some $24,000,000. Suppose 
prices rose and difficulties occurred, and it came to $35,000,000, it is only 
$50 a horse-power. Ten per cent, on that cost would pay interest and 
maintenance charges and the insignificant charge for water set forth in 
the charters; and would be only $5.00 per horse-power per annum for 
the water, at the dam. The capital cost of turbines and power-houses 
in a case like the present, would be small and their annual cost for in- 



HEARING BEFORE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION 339 

terest and maintenance added to the annual cost for the other works 
would still leave a good margin between the total annual cost to the 
Company and the $15.00 per annum mentioned as the probable charge 
to consumers. It is, therefore, to be a paying concern. (Laughter). 
The Government, if it built the works would have its improved naviga- 
tion free, and something to the good from the sale of water for power. 
It would also yield a water rental to the Ontario Government, which 
seems to be entitled to at least as much rental at the Long Sault as at 
Niagara Falls. I thank you, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, for your 
kind attention. (Applause). 

Chairman Gibbons: I am sure we are all very much delighted, 
both sides, to hear from Mr. Kennedy. That is the kind of talk that the 
Commission would like to hear, getting to practical work. I just want 
to disabuse the minds of Mr. Kennedy and the others. It never has 
been proposed that the Commission should now approve of any plans. 
Those plans are not the subject of approval. What we did think was 
that we would get suggestions at this meeting, and hear from people 
like yourself, as to whether it was possible to dam the St. Lawrence with- 
out injuring the interests of navigation. The scheme, if any, would be 
safe-guarded with respect to nearly all the matters that you have spoken 
of, undoubtedly, by both Governments before it would be carried out. 
Certainly there would be no reason why our Government should not buUd 
locks ; but the lock that is proposed would be handed over immediately 
and become the property of the American Government; it certainly 
would not be in private hands. Nobody proposes that a lock on the 
St. Lawrence should be in the hands of any corporation. 

Me. Kennedy: We had to deal with the proposition as it stands. 
The proposition put before us is not that it should be handed over to the 
Governments at all. 

Chairman Gibbons: Oh, absolutely! That was always the pro- 
position. It becomes Government property immediately. 

Mr. King: Would the Chairman indicate if he has in his mind 
what were the proposed safe-guards to be put on the proposition before 
us, that one-half of the power would remain Canadian? 

Chairman Gibbons: I do not want to get into that general dis- 
cussion. (Murmurs). I am not seeking to avoid it, but I do not think 
it wise to now discuss it. One of the conditions agreed upon by the 
Commission is that one-half shall be reserved. I am very glad to hear 
what Mr. Kennedy has had to say. Certainly if one-half of the power 
can be developed on the Canadian side, that is the way to do it. I think 
the Commission will agree upon that. That is a matter that will be 
dealt with later. The principle has been agreed upon, that one-half 
shall be retained and applied for the benefit of Canada. The most 
effectual way to do that is to build a power-house on the Canadian side 



340 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

for one-half, undoubtedly, if that can be done. (Hear, hear). Those 
are matters of detail. They are not going to be surrendered by any- 
thing that is done here now, one way or the other. The first point is, 
is it possible to dam the St. Lawrence without injuring navigation at 
this point? We have not got to that suggestion at all. The plans 
would have to be approved of by the Commission; they would have to 
be approved of by both Governments; and all the matters that Mr. 
Kennedy has spoken of will have to be protected. It is not going to be 
done in a day, or hurriedly, and we are very glad to have Mr. Kennedy's 
advice in the matter. 

Mr. Phingle: I understand Mr. Kennedy to say that this river 
can be dammed wisely and safely. I would like to just know exactly 
what he means by that, because I understand that is really the question 
for the Commission to consider, and that is his language on that point. 

Mr. Kennedy: I think it can. The dams proposed are not ex- 
cessively high. There are other dams higher. They are very long, 
and taking the scheme as a whole, it is larger than anything that has 
been carried out hitherto; but there seems to be nothing in it which is at 
all impossible. It is, however, on an unprecedentedly great scale, and 
things carried greatly beyond the limits of past experience are always 
a bit risky. There is danger of overlooking something essential. We 
have horrible examples of that already not far past, of forgetting some- 
thing or making some mistake. As to the stability of the dams, that 
can easily be secured. Mention has been made of the possibility of 
their breaking loose. They ought to be so designed, and I think they 
can be so designed, that they cannot break away entirely nor all at once. 
They should not be mere walls with just sufficient stability to with- 
stand the water pressure, there ought to be a wide margin of surplus 
strength. We know from recent occurrences at San Francisco, Charles- 
ton, and Kingston, Jamaica, and from light shocks here, that we are 
liable to earthquakes. Sir William Dawson has told us that we may 
expect earthquakes throughout this continent; but I assume that the 
dams can be made with such breadth of base that although one or more 
of them might be seriously damaged, and put out of business as power 
dams, they would not go all in one sweep and allow the impounded 
water to go down with unrestrained rush. On the other hand, I do not 
quite agree with my friend Mr. Kelley that it would go exactly as he 
described. He said, assuming that the water should be suddenly spread, 
from the dam to the lower end of lake St. Francis, it would make a few 
inches uniform rise ; but I think it could not act in that way. If the dam 
were swept out the water would rush forward in a great wave. It always 
does in such cases. We had an instance of the water being dammed up 
over twenty feet at Montreal by the ice some few years ago. It broke 
away suddenly, and a great wave swept away down to Sorel, sweeping 



HEARING BEFORE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION 341 

the ice ahead of it, and it went as a wave, not as a spread-out volume, 
merely raising the whole level a little. If a dam were suddenly swept 
entirely away the water would as suddenly follow in great volume, as 
a great wave, causing devastation along the banks; but that could 
be avoided. I assume that the dams can be quite safely made, and that 
a proper scheme can be so carried out as to be a benefit to navigation. 
(Hear, hear, and applause). Whether the present plans provide for 
doing it in this way or not is another question. 

Chairman Gibbons: Mr. Kennedy, I suppose that, necessarily, 
must be left to the engineers of the two Governments. These details 
would have to be worked out with great care, and we are so advised — 
that the engineers of both Governments would have to be consulted in 
the working out of those details; the Commission possibly as well, but 
certainly the engineers of both countries. 

Mb. Kennedy: Yes, Mr. Chairman, but it seems to me that the 
scheme is of such tremendous magnitude, and something so far beyond 
ordinary practice, that the character of construction is fundamental. It 
is of the essence of the matter and it ought not to be left as a secondary 
question. There ought to be a well-thought-out scheme, a well- 
developed plan; and in asking for powers to dam the St. Lawrence the 
promoters ought to say, "We want to do thus and so," and the 
Government engineers ought to be put in a position to enable them 
to intelligently advise. The promoters should not be permitted to 
say, " We want to dam the St. Lawrence somehow, and having obtained 
a charter, we will do it as we like." We were told yesterday that the 
intended first step in construction is to dam the South channel; and 
the next step is to make the long dam between Long Sault island and 
Bamhart island; and the third step would be the north shore. I 
do not quite understand how it could be carried out that way; but 
that is what we were told. We were also told that the first development 
would serve for a long time, and that the final development on the 
north shore would be a matter for our grand-children. 

A voice: Oh no I 

Mr. Kennedy : That is certainly what we were told yesterday. 

A voice: No sir. 

Mb. Kennedy: We were told that yesterday. 

Chairman Gibbons: Please do not interrupt, let Mr. Kennedy get 
through. 

Mr. Kennedy : The charter if granted, would come into force long 
before our grand-children came into existence. In the meantime the 
improvements to the navigation of the St. Lawrence on a great scale 



342 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

will be demanded; but in putting the work in hand, the Company, with 
its charter and works and vested interests would be in the way. Surely 
that would not be a wise position. The interests of the country should 
not be so jeopardized. The whole question was excellently set forth 
in the protest of the Commission of Conservation read yesterday, and 
I am sure the Harbour Commission will join in that protest, for it was an 
excellent synopsis of what may be urged against the scheme. 

Chairman Gibbons: The Act is not to incorporate any company 
to carry out the work in the way that is suggested here. It is merely 
to authorize them to carry it out in such a way as shall be authorized 
by the two Governments upon the report of their engineers. 

Mr. King: Is that an Act of Congress? 

Chairman Gibbons: Yes, an Act of Congress. 

Mr. Pringle: And approved by the Commission? 

Chairman Gibbons: We are going to suggest that that be ap- 
proved by the Commission. That is not in the Act, which says, " ap- 
proved with the consent of the proper authorities." I may just say 
to Mr. Kennedy, also, that it is not proposed to authorize in the Act of 
Congress anything that is to be done for the grand-children. The pro- 
posal in the Act is, " the actual construction of the works hereby autho- 
rized shall be commenced within one year and be completed within 
fifteen years." 

Mr. Kennedy: There is nothing of that kind in the Canadian 
application. 

Chairman Gibbons: Well, there will be. 

Mr. Kennedy' Mr. Chairman, the maintenance of the work is a 
tremendous matter. You see, these dams have to be kept intact all 
the time. The water has to be regulated in the right way, and the dams 
have to be kept intact. It is to go on, not for a short time or a genera- 
tion, but it is supposed to go on for centuries, for aught we know — ^for 
an indefinite length of time, anyway. Now, the whole navigation of 
the St. Lawrence, the whole navigation interests of the two countries 
would be dependent on the skill and vigilance and good behaviour of 
that company; and we do not know what that company would do in a 
short time. I have in mind a recent water-power affair where da™s 
were intended to be kept up, and they were not kept up, and there was 
trouble about them, law-suits and arbitrations, etc. Any engineer in 
that sort of practice can recall such cases to mind. We do not know. 
We are told these dams will be on the ledge-rock, and that is good, but 
dams do go out. It is not long since a dam right on the solid rock 
gave way in two places, first at one end and then the other, and did 
great damage; and in that case the slipping out of a piece of bank on 
the Cornwall canal was nothing at all to it. 



HEARING BEFORE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION 343 

Chaieman Gibbons: Mr. Kennedy, just allow me. These things have 
to be done all over the continent, and, in the United States, they have a 
special Act dealing with just such matters, giving the Secretary of War, 
who represents navigation, absolute authority to protect the public 
interest; and I suppose we must assume that the Governments of each 
country wUl do their duty. We certainly would recommend that simi- 
lar powers be given on the Canadian side. It is not being left to the 
public or to the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal or to anybody else. 
It must be regulated by the properly constituted authorities who are 
governing this country; and all those protections will be made. This 
Commission is not foolish enough to recommend that any private com- 
pany be permitted to erect dams without proper protection of naviga- 
tion interests, such as are found by experience to be necessary. 

Mr. Kennedy: What I was coming at was that the public bodies 
interested will feel a great deal safer to be directly under the protection 
of the Government. (Applause). 

Chairman Gibbons: I see the point; I agree with you there. 

Mr. King: Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the Commission, if 
I may be allowed to quote a few words of the Chairman yesterday, 
"It is a very easy thing to give judgment without the facts;" and if 
I may be allowed to turn that, it is a much more difficult thing to at- 
tempt to state a case or make an argument without the facts. Now, 
we, the Dominion Marine Association, came to this meeting represent- 
ing practically all the vessels between Montreal and Port Arthur on the 
Canadian side, prepared to discuss certain plans, which we thought 
would be laid before us in the fullest and most absolute detail. I re- 
ferred to that matter yesterday, and perhaps should not go over it again. 
That is what we understood as the result of the last meeting of the Com- 
mission, and we came here prepared simply to hear that discussion, 
perhaps to go away with that information, and to come back again. 
The whole scope of the enquiry now has been changed, and perhaps 
has been more definitely changed — to my mind anyway — by the re- 
marks that were made from the Chair within the last few minutes. We 
are told that the intention to-day is simply to decide one question — 
whether these works are feasible and practicable without interference 
with navigation interests. Now, we all know — 

Chairman Gibbons: Under any plan. 

Mr. King: Under any plan. It is a very general question we 
have to-day, and my heart has been very much cheered by the sugges- 
tion from the Chair that possibly these plans, when they are finally 
put in some definite shape, will be passed upon by the Commission; 
because possibly at that time the Commission will see fit once more to 
consult navigation interests. (Hear, hear). 



344 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

Ghaibhan Gibbons: Certainly, certainly. 

Mb. Kino: And if that is so I need take up very little time. 

Chaibman Gibbons: You quite understand the situation. 

Mb. King: I know we are delighted to have that assurance, 
because it has put us firmly Where we wish to be. Just a word before 
I sit down. There is a divergence of opinion in our Marine Association, 
but that divergence does not necessarily make any difference at all in 
regard to the general principles upon which we are working. Certain 
lines interested in the movement of package freight are, to a certain ex- 
tent — and quite properly — in favour of the improvement, because they 
think that it will shorten the time of navigation at this difficult point in 
the St. Lawrence. (Hear, hear). For instance, the letter of Messrs. J. W. 
Norcross & Go. is written by a firm which has nothing whatever to do 
with the navigation of vessels up and down the St. Lawrence. They 
provide the west-bound freight for the vessels mentioned by my friend 
Mr. McCarthy, which navigate the St. Lawrence. But approval of the 
improvement is all subject to the condition as to how it is to be done 
and the safe-guards which are to be provided. Possibly we can defer 
that whole question. We have felt from the beginning that that was 
the main difficulty. When the proposal was first made that the St. 
Lawrence should be dammed from bank to bank, the resolutions which 
we, and other bodies sent in, speak for themselves. To quote the 
Chairman again, resolutions are not of much avail, and we have dropped 
the resolution part of it, although I have one in my hand which I must 
present before I sit down. (Laughter) . It is not from our Association, 
but was handed to me by a friend who was called from the room. We 
followed the plan of resolutions for some time because we feared the 
whole proposal very much. We were looking for information, and we 
wanted to delay the whole thing till we knew where we were. We have 
not the information yet. We refused the proposal, as Mr. Wright 
pointed out this morning, that we should entrust our case to engineers — 
although we would not have to pay the engineers. That was not the 
question, but we would be running the risk of having them say, " Oh, 
that is all right; that won't interfere with navigation interests;" and 
we would be out of court. What we wanted from the beginning, what 
we Want now, is to know in the fullest detail what is proposed, so that 
we would be able to take our own engineers and our own navigators and 
have our own meeting, and, after a careful study of the proposition, to 
come to you with reasonable suggestions from the point of view of 
navigators, as well as from the point of view of engineers, without being 
bound to the whole case. It is not for me, as representing the Marine 
Association, to protest as a Canadian against the handing over to a 
private corporation powers and franchises which we believe ought to be 
conserved for the public of Canada and of the United States. That is a 



HEARING BEFORE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION 346 

question that will be debated, perhaps by other representatives. But, as 
representing marine interests, I do feel it my duty to say that we do not 
think it is right that a development scheme should be put before the 
Commission for the purpose of developing power, with navigation 
interests to be protected as best they may be. We think the develop- 
ment of the navigation interests to be of primary importance, and they 
ought to be looked upon in that way throughout the deliberations. 
We think, too, that the scheme, if it was for the purpose of improving 
navigation interests, and, incidentally, developing power, would be one 
that we could not possibly question for a moment. We do object, 
because it is an effort to develop power, and, incidentally, to protect us. 
We say that the cart is before the horse entirely. Now, the Richelieu 
& Ontario Navigation Company, of course has very, very serious objec- 
tions. I do not propose to go into them, because the company will be 
represented. Mr. Calvin's interests have disappeared from the discus- 
sion for the time being. As to the freighters, we would consider the 
suggestions reasonable, if all these conditions and qualifications are 
looked after; but we are ignorant at present, and the matter simply 
stands in that way, and we hope to come back before the Commission 
at a later date to see the plans. 

Then as to this resolution I have. I did not intend to throw any 
doubt upon the propriety of the resolution or the words expressed 
here, because I agree with it myself personally. Mr. W. F. Nickle, the 
member for Kingston, was just called away to the House. He had been 
asked by the Kingston Board of Trade to present this resolution, and 
asked me to do it for him: 

Kingston, Ont., Feb. 6, 1910 
To Whom it May Concern: 

Resolved by the Kingston Board of Trade that a dam across 
the Long Sault would be very detrimental to the navigation of the 
St. Lawrence river as it is impossible to tell how the currents would 
be changed by a dam of the nature that it is now proposed to erect. 
Furthermore, the Board of Trade of this city protests against 
the water-power now owned by the country passing over to the 
ownership of private corporations; that these powers should be 
conserved for the use of the people in the future, that we have no 
right to give away the heritage of those who will come after us, 
although at the present moment we have in that vicinity a surplus 
of power, which does not mean that we will have a surplus of power 
a few years hence. Besides, if cheap power could be obtained, 
there is no reason why electricity could not be used for heating, 
and for smelting, as well as for power propositions. 

These things will likely come about, therefore it is to the 
interest of our country that this power should not be given away 
to any private corporations, and we protest against same strongly. 

(Signed) KINGSTON BOARD OF TRADE 

James Richardson 

President 



346 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

Chairman Gibbons: I do not want to repeat again, but I want it 
distinctly understood — Mr. King understands the situation — that 
it is not proposed to finally deal at all, at present, with any par- 
ticular set of plans or propositions. It is proposed by this Gommissior. 
that, if it is thought feasible, that, if it is possible to develop power as 
well as preserve the interests of navigation, any plan to carry these out 
should be again submitted to the Commission, and should be subject 
to the criticism of the public interested, and should further have the 
approval of the engineers of both Governments. 

As to the other point that is raised viz., whether a private cor- 
poration or the public should deal with these matters, that is not a 
matter that can be dealt with by the Commission. Personally, I think 
these should all belong to the country and should be preserved for 
them; but that is not the business of this International Commission. 
We are dealing only with the International question. You can all 
understand that the American members of this Commission have very 
little interest in the question as to whether the power can be brought 
from Niagara to Cornwall or not, and in the other questions that were 
discussed yesterday in connection with the Hydro-Electric Commission. 
I think it would be better if we would stick to the broad question, for, 
even if power can be brought from Niagara Falls to Cornwall, that is no 
reason why the Americans should not deliver power on their side. 

Mr. G. H. Watson, K.C. : Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I have 
been requested to appear with some other gentlemen, to represent a 
somewhat different class of interests than those that have already been 
heard from. I refer to the municipalities which are, or will be affected, 
and which border on the river. I refer particularly to the town of 
Morrisburg, and the adjoining municipality of Williamsburg, as well as 
to other municipalities having a very considerable frontage on the 
river. 

Mr. McCarthy: What are the other municipalities? 

Mr. Watson : Particularly, I represent Morrisburg and Williams- 
burg, Matilda and Osnabruck. Now, Mr. Chairman, it is felt, by those 
whom I represent, that this scheme which has been proposed and is 
under consideration by you, is not a feasible one and should not have 
your approval. The municipalities, as such, are very seriously con- 
cerned. These particular localities and sections were perhaps the first 
in the Province, or amongst the first in the Province, to be settled, and 
that by a class of people whom we will always all of us revere. The 
present occupants are their descendants, having what they think are 
their vested rights and interests, in property particularly, seriously 
interfered with by the proposed scheme. A few of the circumstances 
and conditions make it reasonably manifest, I think, that they will be 
interfered with in material respects. In the first place, in a distance 



HEARING BEFORE INTERNATIONAL. COMMISSION 347 

of about 15i miles, from Morrisburg to the upper end of the Cornwall 
canal, there is a fall of about 10 to 10^ feet. That is sufficient— and no 
more than sufficient— in the best conditions to maintain the current 
which will keep the river open. This proposal is intended, if put into 
effect, to interfere with that current. Now, it is a further circumstance 
that, in that vicinity, there are many narrow points in the river. I need 
not mention them particularly because you are all so familiar with them; 
but the narrowest point in the river is near and a little above the town 
of Morrisburg— perhaps a few miles above. Now, it is apparent that 
this commercial proposal to dam the waters of the St. Lawrence prac- 
tically from shore to shore to a height, it is said, of from 45 to 50 feet, 
will materially obstruct the flow of the river and change the water 
conditions as they now exist. The water would be dammed back, and 
those whom I represent feel that the inevitable result would be that 
it will be dammed back upon their property and their interests adjoining 
the river. Now, that is the strongest possible reason, I think, why the 
project should not be deemed to be a feasible one. If it is going to 
injure, or destroy, or interfere with the vested property rights and 
interests of a large section of that community, then it ought not to be 
proceeded with, unless for more far-reaching and more important 
reasons. Such interests should not be called upon to sacrifice or to be 
endangered in their position unless it is a matter of actual necessity — 
such a necessity as it is deemed may not be said at all to arise Out of a 
commercial proposal, promoted by individuals for profit to themselves. 
That is the position. 

Bear in mind, that the town of Morrisburg has its leases from the 
Government of Canada for the purpose of operating its own local fran- 
chises. It has a right to the exercise of these. Amongst others, its water- 
works, built at a cost of $40,000 — no small sum for such a municipal- 
ity; its electric light works — another sum equal to that; and then its 
electric power, perhaps $100,000. These are large expenditures from a 
municipal standpoint and apart from individual, or company, or partner- 
ship interests, are very considerable for that place. On at least three 
occasions in the past, lands in the vicinity of. Morrisburg have been 
flooded by reason of the rising of the waters of the river. Serious 
damage has been suffered on some of these occasions, so that even as 
matters stand now, these land owners are face to face with some dangers. 
The moment that the proposition of constructing and maintaining a 
dam, to the height of 45 feet, within a short distance from these con- 
ditions, is put into effect, then it is not only probable, but almost 
certain, that sooner or later, their lands will be flooded, causing great 
damage and loss. What is to be their indemnity? Why should they 
be put in that extraordinary position? They are not to be ignored. 
They merit the earnest consideration of this Commission. Of course 



348 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

it may be conceived that in the case of undertakings by the 
Government of the United States, and by the Government 
of Canada for national purposes of either country, or both, they might 
make some sacrifices if given sufficient protection and indemnity. 
That, however, is not the present proposition. We are here face to face 
merely with a commercial proposal for the benefit of the promoters, 
and nothing more and nothing less than that. The project not merely 
endangers our vested rights and interests of long standing in 
the country, but in addition, it is proposed by means of this scheme, 
I think, to vest, not in the Government or Governments, but in in- 
dividuals, the property rights and interests in the waters and in the 
soil of this great International highway between the two countries. 
We all recollect that under the terms of the Webster-Ashburton treaty 
the waters of all these International highways were expressly and for 
all time to be maintained free and open for the use of the citizens of 
both countries. This proposition would mean the subversion of the 
most material term and condition of the Webster-Ashburton treaty, 
because it would take from the rights of the citizens of these countries, 
and would vest property rights and interests, in individuals forming 
and maintaining a commercial corporation. 

Now, then, if it were proposed to the Parliament of this country, by 
gentlemen, however high in repute financially and otherwise, that 
the Government should give over its rights and interests and control in 
this river to a body of Canadian citizens, it would hardly be entertained 
as a serious proposition by our Government. It may not be that the 
legislature of the state of New York and the Congress of the United 
States might regard the matter differently. It cannot be conceived that 
they might be disposed to entertain a similar application to their legis- 
lature and their Congress from Canadian citizens and give over to a new 
corporation composed of foreigners — let me so speak for the purpose 
of illustration — ^the control and the possession of their rights and in- 
terests in the river. They would be very generously disposed indeed 
perhaps for the first time to do so. But with us, it is even a more 
serious proposition, I think, than it would be with them, for the reason 
that we are now called upon to answer the proposition that these rights 
should be given over to American citizens, who, for the most part, 
are the promoters and petitioners for this enterprise, and whose plant 
will be, for the most part, on the American side. Their in- 
terests will all be pro-American; they would control it abso- 
lutely from the American side, even although subject to joint legis- 
lation for corporate purposes, between the two countries. The capital 
is to come from there; the property and assets are to be distributed 
there; the power goes there, and will be distributed there through 
New York state and through adjoining states. In that respect 



HEARING BEFORE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION 349 

vested rights and interests are at once created in connection with the 
contracts which would be made by this Company. These contracts 
would lead on probably for a term of years, and the Company would be 
under obligation to fulfil, and the grant by Parliament of the franchise 
would put the Government under obligation to permit them to fulfil 
them. So that the decision carries with it continuous rights and 
obligations which cannot be overborne or broken. Not only that, but 
note another element of vested rights and interests. This Company, 
having a large capitalization necessary for its operation, commences 
to float its bonds and secures capital of other citizens. Vested interests 
occur at every possible point, not merely arising out of contracts, but 
arising out of those flotations and investments in the bonds and 
securities and, in addition, arising out of investment for manufacturing 
purposes. So that once done, once this is granted, it can never be 
recalled. Once possession is yielded, then possession and control of 
the waters of this river are forever gone, not only from the Canadian 
Government but from the Government of the United States, and become 
vested in special corporate interests or in individual interests. 

It seems to me that this proposition cannot well be said to be feasible 
at the suggestion of individuals working for profit and for gain. The 
reply that was suggested in the first place was the necessity for power, the 
demand and the supply of power. Mr. Chairman, you and the other gentle- 
men of the Commission must have been very greatly impressed by the 
full and frank statements of Mr. Beck on behalf of the Hydro-Electric 
Commission, on behalf of himself and the provincial Government. He 
stated that they were prepared to supply all the power requirements of 
every community in the Province. That is far-reaching and, I submit, 
from the power standpoint, is unanswerable; and it comes from the 
highest provincial authority on the subject. Then, again, every one 
must have been very greatly impressed with the forcible and concisely 
stated views of the Conservation Commission, presented through its 
Chairman, Mr. Sifton. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I submit that 
having regard to these conditions and to these weighty grounds and 
reasons, that this commercial proposition as now proposed, is not fair, 
or proper, or feasible. 

Me. Lafleur: Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, as I told you yester- 
day, I appear on behalf of the Montreal Board of Trade, and represent 
no private interests at all. We are guided simply by a desire to protect 
the commercial interests of the community, and the moment we art 
convinced that they are not jeopardized our task will be done. Aftei 
the repeated assurances that you have given us to-day that this project, 
which we regard as unfinished, inchoate, at the present moment, will, 
when it has reached a proper degree of perfection be re-submitted to 
this Commission, and that we shall have an opportunity of discussing 



3W COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

it and of ascertaining whether it really meets the requirements of the 
case, it would be in.expedient for me to address you on what I suppose 
is the main question to-day, that is, whether this scheme as propounded 
interferes or is likely to interfere with the navigation of the St. Lawrence 
river. 

You must not be surprised or take it amiss that we, uninformed, 
uninstructed as to what was really intended to be done, should have 
come here in the position of objectors to the scheme. The burden of 
proof was surely on those propounding the scheme to have all the 
information ready for your Commission, and not only for you but, I 
submit, for the general public whose interests are at stake. It was their 
duty to have all this material ready for consideration before they asked 
for the adoption of the scheme. I think you must have been impressed 
by what Mr. Kennedy said a moment ago — and he is a very high 
authority on the subject — ^that although there may be some details 
which can be attended to at a later stage, some of those details may 
prove to be fundamental, and it may be that the scheme as ultimately 
propounded to you, and as expressed in plans and specifications, will 
present such dangers as might induce you to report unfavourably to 
the scheme. That is why we desire to reserve what we have to say until 
a later date, until those on whom is undoubtedly the burden of making 
their case may be ready with the proper material and information. 
My learned friend Mr. McCarthy, treated the matter as so clear, so 
simple, so obvious that nothing was to be said on the other side. Now, 
what strikes me, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, is this: If the thing is 
so sipiple, if it is so obvious from the engineering point of view, why 
all this mystery? Why are the plans, which were promised a year ago 
last November, not forthcoming? What is the meaning of this extra- 
ordinary secrecy, which is maintained up to the very moment when the 
scheme is presented for final consideration? That is a thing which 
reasonably excited our suspicion, and we cannot conceive for a moment 
that those who are promoting the scheme should ask you to give your 
judgment upon the matter until they have afforded not only yourselves 
but the general public the opportunity of criticizing their scheme. 
Now, that is all I have to say on that branch of the case at the present 
moment. I am quite conscious of the fact that you do not care to hear 
from counsel so much as from experts; and it was because I desired to 
be able to furnish you with expert testimony that I informed you that 
under the present circumstances, and with the lack of information 
which existed, it was impossible for us to offer any assistance to you. 
The evidence which Mr. Kennedy gave to-day is precisely the kind of 
evidence which we desire to have to submit for your information. It 
is that kind of intelligent expert evidence that, I think, should be 
weighed carefully by your Commission. It is not an ex parte statement 



HEARING BEFORE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION 351 

of the engineers for the promoters unsupported by any reasoned opinion. 
I listened with some surprise to the Vague generalities which were 
enunciated by those for whom I have the highest respect as experts; 
but never in my life have I heard such vague generalities as they 
indulged in at this meeting; absolutely nothing that they could be 
examined on. 

I am further impressed, and my chents instruct me to present for 
your consideration another view which was enunciated by Mr. Kennedy 
to-day. It is this ; in making up your minds whether you shall recom- 
mend this scheme to the Government in some form or other, you 
should consider whether the proper development of the St. Lawrence 
navigation through a system of enlarged canals, should not be taken 
in hand by the Government (hear, hear) rather than to allow power 
schemes to be first placed so as to obstruct the river and impede the 
action of the Government in the navigation schemes later on. (Hear, 
hear). Now, I understood from a remark made by the Chairman a 
moment ago, that this was beyond the province of this Commission. 
You have considered it sufiiciently within your province to make 
provisions — 

Chairman Gibbons: I did not speak about that; I did not so 
understand it. 

Mr. Lafleur: I am glad if I am mistaken, because it seems to 
me that this is germane to the object you were going to recommend to 
the Government, and your recommendationof course will have enormous 
weight on the technical question. You are going to recommend either 
that this scheme is feasible or that it is not feasible, and that it should 
be carried out on certain lines approved by you. Now, if it be true, as we 
are told, that the Government has in view the enlargement of the canals 
on a considerable scale, if it be true, as Mr. Kennedy says, that the 
proper way is to encourage this enlargement of the canals, and the 
damming of the river for navigation purposes, and, incidentally, to 
develop power, it follows as a matter of course that all this work should 
be under Government control, should be Grovernment work. It is 
impossible to separate the two questions, and I would ask you to give 
that matter your most serious consideration in the recommendations 
which you are about to make. I was very much impressed with what 
Mr. Kennedy said upon the subject; and it is entirely in accordance 
with the views which my clients have instructed me to present to you. 

Mr. Cumberland: Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the Board of Trade 
of the city of Toronto I am very glad indeed to follow in the lines of 
the Board of Trade of Montreal in maintaining that every use that is 
possible should be made of this waterway for the advantage of all the 
people, and the trade of both countries. I understood you to say a few 
minutes ago, sir, that this meeting was not to be considered as being 



352 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

for the purpose of considering any particular plans or propositions. I 
also understood, that it might be considered within your powers, to 
make some recommendations, upon the general proposition, of the 
possibility of the river being used for development purposes; and that 
it was within your power to advise the Government as to whether it 
might be done on a government basis. 

Chairman Gibbons: Well, hardly. No! I said that was a matter 
for Government policy, but not for us. 

Me. Cumberland: Well, at all events, you asked for information 
upon the general principle, so that you could report upon the general 
principle without being bound as to whether it should be a development 
by a company or by a Government. Then, I would ask under those 
circumstances, that it would be quite understood that the notices of this 
meeting shall not be considered as binding upon anyone; because the 
notice of this meeting calls it, not for a general purpose but for a par- 
ticular purpose, for the particular purpose of considering the develop- 
ment of power at the Long Sault rapids by the Long Sault Development 
Company of New York and the St. Lawrence Power Company of Ontario. 
I understand, therefore, that the definition of the single purpose of this 
meeting has to be construed to be, that we are discussing the general 
proposition and the general possibilities, not any particular plans. I am 
glad of it, because we did not have them before us, and that was one of 
the main points which the Board of Trade of Toronto raised. I will then 
proceed to speak upon the subject on general principles, not solely as a 
member of the Board of Trade, but as one having had rather a long 
association with navigation. 

I understand the general principle is: That the developments are to 
be subject to the rights of navigation. Tersely, this is a navigable river. 
It has its whole flow eastward. Its capacity for being used eastwards 
is admitted; I need not go into details. Westwards there seems to have 
been an impression that it was not of use and never had been used. On 
the contrary, the whole of the central sections of the United States and 
the whole of Upper Canada were at one time dependent upon this river 
for the interchange of their trade, and the internal trade of the districts 
on both sides of the lakes above these Long Sault rapids, was carried up 
by batteaux through that river. It was, at that time, a navigable river, 
used for navigation purposes, as a means of communication for the trade 
of the two countries. I hold, therefore, that the rights of navigation 
are established both eastwards and westwards. If we are going to 
deal with the future centuries in respect to this river, it is not unfair 
that we should look back for 60 or 70 years, when this river was 
used for upstream navigation. I take it, then, sir, that the desire 
of your Commission is to see how far any division of the flow of 
water upon this International stream can be made, so as to permit of 



HEARING BEFORE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION 363 

development possibilities on each side, subject to the interests of navi- 
gation. There is no other instance that I know of in which you have 
dealt at all differently. Take, for instance, at Sault Ste. Marie. There 
you have divided the flow of water proportionately between the two 
sides of the channel, subject to the right of navigation. I hold, there- 
fore, that the rights of these two countries to navigation upon that 
river are inalienable, and its waters can only be dealt with for the 
purposes of development subject to the rights of navigation. 

I will come to another point. It divides itself practically into the 
use of navigation for the two classes^-passenger and freight trade. 
Consider it first, on passenger and tourist rights in the Long Sault rapids. 
These are spread far wider than has hitherto been brought before this 
Commission. These rapids are one of the wonders of the world. The 
Long Sault rapids are as truly one of the wonders of the world as are the 
Niagara falls. There are no other rapids in the world hke them. There 
are no other rapids in this world where a large-sized steamer can go down 
their billowing waters, and, under careful direction, give the people an in- 
stance of the mighty power of a mighty river, as is given in the Long 
Sault rapids. They are incomparable; they are unequalled. Now, this is 
one of the marvels of nature. The proposition implies that it shall be 
destroyed. I hold, sir, that your Commission is not likely, from your 
past actions, to recommend such a proposal without very considerable 
deliberation. What are the rights that you are to consider? They are 
not the rights of one single navigation company; they are the rights of 
the travelling public — ^people that come from other lands as well as this. 
I submit to you that they are the rights of the city of Toronto, of Buffalo, 
of Niagara Falls, of every city along the line of the northern tourist route 
that is interested in the passage and accumulation of passengers and 
tourists through their districts. There is not anyone in Buffalo, Niagara 
Falls or Toronto who is interested in any way in the incoming and out- 
going of any tourist, who has not to come under your consideration as 
having a vested right in those rapids. We can see what can be done 
with that business if we look back but a few years, when tourists on that 
route were served very differently from what they are now; when we 
see the constant increase, the strenuous effort on the part of the naviga- 
tion companies who are developing this line of tourist travel to keep up 
with the constant increase of people from all parts of the United States, 
and of the world, who are seeking the St. Lawrence river. What will it be 
fifty or a hundred years hence if you are to destroy one of the wonders 
of nature? Supposing it were said from a commercial point of view, 
"There is a great deal of water going to waste over Niagara falls; it 
would be much more profitable that we should shut up the Niagara falls 
and take all the water and give it into the hands of developing companies 
on either side." That would be a practical proposition. You could do 



854 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

it, but you Would not. Why? Simply from the interest of the travelling 
people, and our own people, who go to see the scenic grandeur which the 
Almighty gave and which we are allowed to keep. I believe, sir, that 
the Long Sault rapids stand exactly in the same position as the Niagara 
falls. You may take certain portions out of them and develop them; 
but in the face of public opinion you cannot destroy them. 

Then as to the subject of Canadian vessels and Canadian freight. I 
submit that there are larger principles involved than have yet been 
spoken of. It is proposed that this canal should be entirely upon the 
American side. I am very glad indeed to hear from Mr. Kennedy that 
it might also be possible — because engineers, ever since they constructed 
the tower of Babel, have come to the conclusion that if you give them 
money enough — 

Chairman Gibbons : That is not a detail agreed upon at all — ^that 
it should be entirely on the American side. There are suggestions that 
there should be a lock on the Canadian side. I mean that those are 
details that perhaps we had better not discuss. 

Mr. Cumberland: I understood we were discussing the question as 
to whether it was to be on the American side. It was said to be on 
the American side, and the letters that were presented from those 
various companies deal with it as a lock on the American side, and I 
claim that that is before this Commission at the present time, from those 
letters that have been already presented. Now, I want to give the reason 
why. Those letters state that an offer has been made to those various 
transportation and freighting companies, and their approval has been 
obtained, for a lock to be placed upon the American side. That stands 
unquestionably before us at this present time. Now, they have been 
promised full use, and in consideration of being given full use, they have 
modified their acceptance — as Mr. Kennedy has pointed out, with one or 
two "ifs" in it. A full use for how long? For to-day or forever? A 
promise of full use given by whom ? By a private Company, and only 
by a private Company. 

Chairman Gibbons: I do not want to interrupt, but any locks 
will be handed over absolutely to the respective Governments, not to 
be kept in private hands at all. Under no scheme that will be approved 
by this Commission will any locks be held by anybody privately. 

Mk. Cumberi;ANd: I am very glad to hear tkat; but before an 
absolute consent is given to the diversion of the water for that purpose 
to that side, there is something more required. It is a good thing to say 
that full use should be given. Now, I hope my American friends upon 
the Commission will forgive me if I say, as a navigation man, that the 
offer of the use of the lock is not the dominant question. The ability to 
use it, the permission to use it, is very much more important. You 
might offer it, and say, " You may use it," but some other person might 
step in and say, " You shall not." 



HEARING BEFORE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION 364 

May I recall some of the past of navigation — doing it in this way 
only to say that we have learned to smile at the action of the American 
Government and to forget it, except as a lesson to be learned in any agree- 
ments that we may make with respect to the future. In 1870 the only 
canal on the Great Lakes' system was on the American side at the 
Soo. We had a little trouble up in the Northwest, and Lord 
Wolseley and his men desired to go there. We loaded them on the 
steamers at Sarnia and CoUingWood and took them up to the Soo, but 
we were not permitted to take them through the canal. Passage through 
the canal was refused to us, not only to the men, but whatever they 
needed in the way of supplies. We had to slip another steamer through 
the Soo canal, up to the upper end of the canal, at a place called Pointe 
aux Pins, and with that canal Is^ng empty on the American side we had 
to transfer all our men, our baggage, our munitions, our food, across 
from the Canadian Soo up to Pointe aux Pins and load it on another 
steamer. It did not last long. What was our answer ? We built our own 
canal; and we have given the use of that canal forever, without any 
objection, to our American friends. I will give another instance. In 
1872, under the Washington treaty, it was promised that the canals on 
both sides were to be used on equal conditions by the citizens of both 
nations. Has any Canadian vessel gone down the Erie canal yet ? No ; 
none have ever been allowed to, because the state of New York — ^the 
state in which this proposed canal would be — has never given per- 
mission to any Canadian vessels to use the New York canal. 

Commissioner Clinton: Permit me to interrupt you. There is 
absolutely no bar to vessels capable of navigating that canal, whether 
Canadian or American, as they are at liberty to use it all the time 
without paying toll. 

Mh. Cumberland: I hope that when the enlargement of the canal 
comes, so that larger vessels can go down, that then our American 
friends will take a larger view of the proposition. 

Commissioner Clinton: I beg your pardon. We never have 
presented any obstacles whatever to the use of that canal by Canadian 
vessels. But you speak of vessels; the canal is adapted only to canal 
barges drawing seven feet of water. 

Mr. Cumberland: Quite true; I know. Would you allow me to 
ask whether a Canadian barge can go down the Whitehall canal in the 
state of New York? 

Commissioner Clinton: That is a proposition with which I am 

not acquainted. 

Mb. Cumberland: The equal use of the Canadian canals was given; 
but the use of the New York canals was not given. I will give another 
illustration. Under the arrangement made in 1872 a Canadian barge 
loading at Ottawa with lumber can proceed only to the United States, 



356 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

but is not permitted to go any farther. It must unload there and go back 
again. It cannot cross the boundary through the Whitehall canal and 
carry its cargo. An American barge can leave Albany, go up to Ottawa, 
load with Canadian lumber, go back through the Canadian canal and 
back through the American canal. We give the American barge the full 
use of our canals but the state of New York does not give the Canadian 
one the full use of the Whitehall canal. I only mention these as being 
still excellent illustrations. Again, in 1892 — I think I am right in the 
date — Canada was taking tolls upon the Welland canal; the same right 
of usage, the same rate of toll being paid both by Canadian and by 
American vessels. We conceived it for the interests of our port at 
Montreal, that it might be desirable that, when grain was going 
through for export from Montreal, carried from the Upper lakes in an 
American vessel or in a Canadian vessel, no matter which, when it was 
exported from Montreal the vessel should have a rebate of the tolls 
paid through the canal at Welland. That was a fair proposition. 
Unfortunately it turned out that it was not so considered by some 
other people, and the state of Michigan put on a toll on the Sault 
Ste. Marie canal, and all Canadian vessels, which had previously 
passed through free and upon exactly the same terms as the American 
vessels, had to pay tolls during that season. Now, I mention these, 
occurrences, sir, only as things which I say are to be taken into considera- 
tion before an offer, or a promise, is given of a free use of the proposed 
works at the Long Sault. These points must be settled so that there 
shall be unquestionably the right of use for all time. In the times that 
I have referred to, we were looked upon as back-woods voyageurs, 
but with the better relations and the greater friendliness that has grown 
up between Canada and the United States, I believe that arrangements 
could and would be made between the two Governments regarding 
the rights of navigation; but not through the medium of a private com- 
pany. This private Company that offers all those rights to these gentle- 
men who say they accept them, cannot keep its agreement. They 
may say "You may use them," but they cannot give them the right 
of using them, which is in the hands of the Governments only. There- 
fore, it is a proposition which begins not with private companies, 
but begins with governments. So much, then, for the freighting. 
The Commission may say how much water may be diverted for the 
purposes of these canals, but they cannot, in any way, give a certainty 
of the continuation of their use. 

With respect to the electrical energy, I think we may take it from 
the proposition that we have seen before us, that the main object is the 
electrical energy — as Mr. Kennedy very properly put it — with the canal 
proposition thrown in. That is the real basis of the project. And I do 
not wonder at it, when we consider that it has been said by the engineers 



HEARING BEFORE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION 357 

that 600,000 horse-power can be developed. I do not wonder at those 
who are seekingfor such opportunities of development striving with every 
endeavour to obtain them. It is a larger proposition than Niagara falls. 
I am told that the total output of Niagara falls is 450,000 horse-power, 
which is only a small thing in comparison with the Long Sault. The 
Niagara falls is only two-thirds the size of it. No wonder attention is 
given to it, and no wonder that there is such energy exercised in trying 
to obtain possession of it. 

Chairman Gibbons: I would just like to ask a question, and get 
to a point. Do you think that, if 600,000 horse-power can be developed 
without injury to navigation, it ought to be done? Or should it remain 
idle? 

Mr. Cumberland : Are you asking me the question ? 

Chairman Gibbons: Yes. 

Mr. Cumberland : I say, subject to the rights of navigation, you 
can raise as much as possible. I did not say 600,000, but the 
proposition states that they can maintain 600,000; and this is all 
on the American side. There is a smaller portion, somewhere about 
100,000, on the Canadian side, with another little step — to put in a 
canal and a minor power-house. I am glad indeed to think that there 
are possibilities for the creation of power in that neighbourhood; and 
those private companies say — -and evidently Brockville and Cornwall 
have been very much affected by it — "we will give you all the 
electrical power that you want." Can they? They cannot. Who 
says whether they shall or whether they shall not? The American 
Government. And at this present time, as I am advised, there is no 
authority for export. At this present time when those offers are being 
made to Brockville and Cornwall and other places, and to Canada for 
the future, there is no power for the export of one single pony-power of 
electrical energy from the American side to the Canadian; not one. 
How much is the offer worth ? It depends entirely upon the Government; 
therefore it must begin with the Government. Now, supposing that 
this whole power was on the Canadian side and we could develop it all 
on the Canadian side, we cannot get an absolute right of exporting it 
to the state of New York. To-day the surplus power at Niagara Falls 
happens to be on our side. What license can you get for export to the 
United States? For a year? No. For a day? No. All that you can 
get is a revocable license, subject to revocation at any time. Now, 
under those circumstances, seeing that this is the condition of the use 
of the power developed from this water in the Long Sault channel, 
the first point to settle is not, how should it be done? Or, who shall do 
it? But; what are you going to do with it after you have got it? I 
think those are prime points. Because remember, we are dealing not 
with to-day; we are dealing with Canada in its future. I submit, there- 



368 OOMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

fore, that the proposition should be turned the other way round, 
and the result of the use of the water should first be settled; after that, 
how it might be done; and then after that, who is to do it. 

Now, I want to address my friends from the United States and our 
people from Canada upon the general subject. I want to speak for a 
moment or two on behalf, not of navigation, not of any particular 
interest, but of the whole people of the two countries. I understand 
that it is the broad proposition which is before us. While, a few years ago, 
there might have been some reason — I would not say there is now — for 
considering a proposition to divide the water-power with a water com- 
pany, there is nothing in this proposition that will advance that private 
company one iota. Why is there such hurry after the matter has been 
in abeyance for so long a time ? Why do we find these agitations among 
the municipalities who have been asked to send up their representatives? 
Why do we find these consultations upon changes of plans being con- 
ducted, not with the Commission but outside the Commission? Why 
this buying up of opposition, and making arrangements with some of 
those who were opposed in their trade to this proposition? What is 
the reason of all this? Because our investing friends have got their 
ears to the ground, and their eyes to the sky (Laughter) , and they see 
and they hear what is coming. From one end of the American republic 
to the other, the people are to-day agitated more than they ever were, 
upon the conservation of the natural resources of the country. 
Nothing is so prominent in the questions which are agitating people of 
the United States at the present time as the preservation of the 
resources of the land and the water for the benefit of the people, and 
to prevent them from passing into the hands of those whom they are 
accustomed to speak of as the "barons" — ^the beef barons, the coal 
barons, the water barons, the electrical barons. I am not using those 
terms, but merely quoting terms that have been used in the United 
States, since the time that this proposition was first brought before 

you. 

Chaieman Gibbons: You can call us all "barons." 
Mb. Cumberland : It has also arisen here, and I want to say that 
your duty as a Commission, your interests, are the interests of the people 
at large. It is not to consider whether it is feasible to hand over the 
natural resources to a private corporation, but to preserve by all means 
in your power the public right for the people. On our Canadian side 
the same question exactly h.a.a come up, later than in the United States. 
I am glad to say that we are following their example in that respect, and 
conservation of natural resources is now becoming a dominant question 
with us. You have the report of the Executive Committee of the 
Canadian Conservation Commission before you. I, therefore, claim that 
in taking this matter into consideration you must view it, not from the 



HEARING BEFORE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION 3fi9 

point of view of a private proposition, but as taking away a public 
right. Stealing the rights of the people, in the alienation of their natural 
energies must stop, and stop now. It will be impossible in the face of 
public opinion to go on and to propose, by public representatives, to 
hand over to private individuals the rights which belong to the people 
at large. The water belongs to the people; the power belongs to the 
people; and to them only can the rights of it be transferred or be 
approved of by a Commission which represents the people. (Applause). 

Mr. Meredith: I have only a word to say, Mr. Chairman and 
gentlemen. Anything that I had to say is practically done away with 
by the fact that you stated, Mr. Chairman, I believe for the Commis- 
sion, that what you are really going to do now is to decide whether any 
scheme — not this particular scheme, but any scheme — is feasible. That, 
I understand, will be reported further with the plans of any scheme, if 
any scheme is considered feasible — the promoters will come back to you. 

Chairman Gibbons: We are going to recommend that they come 
back. Of course we have no authority to settle that; but that wiU be 
the recommendation, I understand, agreed upon by all the Commission — 
that no scheme should be carried out without being approved by our 
Commission. 

Commissioner Clinton: Practically a condition of the recommen- 
dation. 

Mr. Meredith: That is what I want to get at, and that when they 
do come back for your consideration, the parties who believe they are 
interested in the matter will be given an opportunity of putting before 
you their views on those plans; that is, I understand, the statement? 

Chairman Gibbons: Yes. 

Mr. Meredith : The only other view I was asked to put before you 
for your consideration was this; that is: Should you think any scheme is 
feasible, that you should consider the view of the Shipping Federation 
of Canada, that the scheme should be one that would be constructed and 
operated by the respective Governments who have the rights in the 
waters and in the river bed; that the giving of these tremendous rights 
for all time to any individuals, no matter how much respect we may 
have for them, would be a detriment, and a huge detriment — almost 
too large to qualify by any adjective — to both countries. That is the 
view that I have been asked to express; the only one apart from asking 
for the consideration of plans. 

Mr. R. C. Smith: Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I suppose I 
might as well say what I have to say at this period as at any other. 
When a person comes forward and frankly admits that he represents 
private interests, he is, so to speak, a marked man. But it may be just 
as well that you should look at this thing in the concrete, and that you 
shoyld take into consideration the actual financial interests that are 



360 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

jeopardized by this scheme. First let me say that the suggestion made 
at the opening of this discussion, that Montreal counsel here, represented 
in a concealed fashion the Montreal Light, Heat & Power Company, 
was one that was purely gratuitous, purely imaginary. Neither my 
friends Mr. Meredith nor Mr. Lafleur nor myself have any connection 
whatever with the Light, Heat & Power Company of Montreal; and 
the attempt to drag in prejudice against that Company 350 miles away 
from home was certainly not creditable to arguments presented in favour 
of so great a scheme. It is probably an indication of the poverty of 
argument in favour of it. I wish to answer another thing that has been 
said, or rather suggested, by a number here. It is this: that the people 
in the vicinity of the Long Sault are starving for power; starving, 
dying for power. In the last report, the St. Lawrence Company stated 
that they had 3,000 horse-power undeveloped right there at Cornwall. 
There is power at Merrickville, there is power at Morrisburg, there is 
power all over there. And then, in addition to that, we have the 
authoritative and the ofScial statement of Mr. Beck, a member of the 
Government of the province of Ontario, that they have offered power 
to a'U those municipalities; that they are ready to supply power, not at 
the figure suggested by this Company, but at a very much lower rate. 
So that all this hue and cry, these speeches that have developed a little 
bluff here in this meeting, are quite aside from the question, because I 
submit that they have been most emphatically and completely answered 
by Mr. Beck's statement before this Commission. 

Chairman Gibbons: Mr. Smith, will you allow me — because we 
might as well thresh these things out. Assume there was no immediate 
demand in Ontario : Can an International Commission refuse to permit 
power to be developed, if they want it south of the line because we have 
no demand here? Just assume that position; I would like you to 
answer. 

Mr. R. G. Smith: I shall be pleased to assume exactly what the 
Chairman suggests, and it opens up a very large question. All these 
International questions ought to be approached with absolute courtesy; 
more than that, with delicacy. But as I shall have occasion more than 
once to refer to these International questions, I say now that I shall 
make no apology for doing so, because I have confidence in the men 
here, who are large men of the world, men of affairs; and there ought 
to be no mealy-mouthed hesitation in discussing International questions 
before them. I shall, therefore, address anything I have to say, perhaps 
more to the American than to the Canadian members of the International 
Commission. If you are going to consider, in the recommendation made 
to the Governments, the necessities which exist for the power which it is 
proposed to create, then, I say, with all possible respect, that the 
•Canadian section of the International Waterways Commission ought 
to consider what are the requirements of Canada in the vicinity. 



HEARING BEFORE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION 361 

Chairman Gibbons : Of course. 

Me. R. G. Smith: I will not say that it should have a controlling 
or a determining influence upon your judgment. Far be it from me to 
dictate in the slightest as to your duty. I will not even suggest that it 
ought to have any controlling effect; but I suggest that it ought to have 
a very potent influence in determining the recommendation which the 
Canadian section would make. If it appeared that there was no demand 
for power whatever, if it appeared that such demand as did exist could 
be fully supplied with waste power, undeveloped power, right on 
the spot, then I say that would be at least a proper subject for the 
International Waterways Commission to take into consideration. 

Let me now say briefly what I have to say on behalf of the Richelieu 
& Ontario Navigation Company. If I had had any notes at all, I would 
feel like suggesting that Mr. Cumberland had stolen those notes from 
me, because he has presented and has elaborated the case for the Riche- 
lieu & Ontario Navigation Company much more cogently and gracefully 
than I could pretend to do. The Long Sault rapids have been navigated 
since 1843. The Richelieu & Ontario Navigation Company has grown 
from small beginnings to be very much the largest and most influential 
of the inland navigation companies. It has a capital of five million 
dollars, and fleets of vessels that are certainly no discredit to this 
country. The service has been largely improved. The accommodation 
has been increased. The Company has spent enormous sums of money 
all over this continent and elsewhere, even in Europe, in advertising this 
St. Lawrence route. Now, it is all very well to brush this all aside and 
say, we must not allow 'shooting the chutes' to interfere with industrial 
development. I suppose, sir, that we must be content to have a car 
of Juggernaut break down all that is beautiful and all that is enjoyable 
in life any time. I suppose all our beautiful waterfalls are going to be 
utilized in generating electrical power, and all the picturesque and all 
the beautiful is to be ignored. But I am not going to put it upon that 
aesthetic footing at all; I am going to look at it from another point of 
view. We find, by the most carefully compiled statistics that can be 
obtained, that this trade, which has gradually been built up by the 
Richelieu & Ontario Navigation Company brings over 50,000 people to 
this country every year; and that those people have left from $2,750,000 
to $3,000,000 every year among our trades people. They spend 
$3,000,000 in our country every time they come here. Now, I say that 
this is worth something. You have stated over and over again that the 
Commission has unanimously sanctioned the principle that navigation 
interests are to be paramount. Now, the whole thing can be stated in 
one word: we have now, a natural channel; they ask you to substitute 
an artificial channel. They try to convince you that that is not going 
to be any impediment to navigation; but in the very next breath my 



362 COMMISSION OF OONSBRVATION 

learned friend Mr. McCarthy, with his well known eloquence, told you, 
"This is going to be the biggest lift-lock in the world;" the Develop- 
ment Company is going to bring people from all over the continent to 
see this mighty lift-lock that is higher than any other that has ever been 
constructed. It is going to dam the whole of the St. Lawrence river, 
and it is going to make us pass through the highest lock that has ever 
been constructed, and they want you to say that it is not an interference 
with navigation. 

Let me refer incidentally to another matter. Mr. Calvin stated 
here yesterday with great clearness and great frankness, which I 
admired, that he had been, so to speak, disinterested; that he, repre- 
senting the rafting interests — may I use a vulgar word — had been 
"squared." (Laughter). 

Mr. McCarthy: The timber, you are speaking of? 

Mr. R. 0. Smith: Not square timber. (Laughter). At all events, Mr. 
Calvin came forward and told you 

Chairman Gibbons : It is a question of deals. (Laughter). 

Mr. R. G. Smith: Well, I am not going to suggest log-rolling — 
(Laughter) — but at all events Mr. Calvin declared to you here that he 
had made a contract, and the ink was not quite dry upon the paper, 
by which this commercial corporation agreed to indemnify him for 
all his losses. Now, I would like to say this, or ask this: Did they 
at the same time — 

Chairman Gibbons: Fix youl (Great laughter). 

Mr. R. C. Smith: That, I believe, is one of the very best questions 
that I have heard the Chairman ask to-day. (Laughter) . I was not going 
to put it in that shape, that they fixed me, but what I was going to aak 
was this : Did they make any provision for indemnifying all the other 
shipping interests that will be affected when Mr. Calvin's logs and Mr. 
Calvin's rafts and every other raft is forced through that lock? They 
don't say to Mr. Calvin, "You go out of the business." There is going 
to be some lumbering done still; there are going to be some rafts go 
down, and Mr. Calvin's rafts and everybody else's rafts are going to come 
through this single lock that is to be the biggest lift-lock in the world, 
and when our steamers come along and Mr. Calvin's rafts or any other 
rafts are in the locks, we are going to be detained. Is there any provi- 
sion made for compensating those interests ? Not at all. I say that the 
fact that they have agreed to indemnify Mr. Calvin is an admission before 
this Commission that they ought, if they get permission to proceed, 
to indemnify all the other interests that they have injured. 

Mr. McCarthy: You called that "square" before? 

Mr. R. C. Smith: Well, that they should square other interests. 
It is an admission on their part that they ought to do it, but I say that by 
doing it in that shape, and by squaring Mr. Calvin, they do not make 



HEARING BEFORE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION 863 

that transportation route more convenient or any more speedy or 
expeditious for my Company or for anybody else using it. Now, there 
is another matter. That route which we have enjoyed, and which is 
a free, unobstructed route, passes through International waters. A 
short portion of it at the bend in the river is wholly within the United 
States territory, but through International waters it passes unobstructed. 
It is proposed now to substitute for that unimpeded natural route a 
single lock which is situated wholly in American territory. Not only is 
that lock situated wholly in American territory, and to be owned, we 
are told, by the Government of the United States, but all the regulating 
and controlling works in connection with this power development are 
to be situated wholly in the United States. 

Chairman Gibbons: May I just interrupt there again? These 
details have not been settled, and I do not know that I ought to say so, 
but I do know that the engineers of the Government of Canada are 
insisting that a lock should be on the Canadian side. That is one of the 
details to be discussed subsequently, but the Canadian Government's 
position so far with regard to that, as I understand it, is that there must 
be a lock on the Canadian side in place as well. 

Mr. R. C. Smith : I am very much obliged to the Chairman. That 
illustrates what people have said, and by no one more forcibly said, 
than this morning by Mr. Wright, that we are in the dark. 

Chairman Gibbons: We are not dealing with those details now. 
Mr. R. G. Smith: I am speaking of the general outline of the plan 
that Mr. Rickey gave us on the map yesterday. 

Chairman Gibbons : There is nothing in the form ; only the general 
question is before us that you are discussing— that under no condition 
should it be dammed. I think what you have said so far in discussion 
is important. 

Mr. R. C. Smith: I was just wondering, if nothing at all has been 

decided, what was the basis of settlement with Mr. Calvin. (Laughter). 

Chairman Gibbons: I cannot enlighten you as to that. 

(Laughter) . 

Mr. R. C. Smith: There seems to have been something definite 
enough to make a contract in black and white with Mr. Calvin. Well, 
now, I submit this to you, that we have an actual and existing interest 
in objecting to the controlling works and the canal or the lock being 
situated wholly outside of Canadian territory. Those controlling 
works— I need not emphasize this, for it is apparent to you all— are 
not part of a navigation proposition, they are part of a power proposi- 
tion. Those controlling works will be operated in the interests of the 
power scheme, and not in the interests of the navigation scheme. Those 
controlling works might be so worked as to materially affect the whole 
channel down to Quebec. Those controUing works would probably 



364 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

come into play more during the low water than at any other time, 
and if they held back water for power purposes, they might very 
well affect the channel some inches, which might result very 
seriously indeed to the whole navigation of the Long Sault. Now, 
I say that that emphasizes the fact that we have an actual and 
an existing interest in whatever controlling or regulating devices 
are adopted, in whatever plan is adopted, in having them situated 
where they are under our own jurisdiction. I would not suggest that 
that canal would be used by the United States Government prejudicially 
to Canadian interests. There have been a number of examples shown 
by Mr. Cumberland where the Canadians did not feel quite satisfied 
with their treatment; but what I say is, that when you are coming now 
to an International body to discuss the problem, I want our American 
friends to put themselves exactly in our position, and to look at it 
judicially, as though they were Canadians, not Americans, for the time 
being. 

Chairman Gibbons: They will, and always have, I am very glad 
to say. 

Mr. R. G. Smith: Then I am sure if they do, they wiU feel that if 
a power development of 600,000 horse-power was proposed, and only 
100,000 of it could possibly be developed on the American side or 
within American jurisdiction, and that the lock which was substituted 
for the free, unimpeded channel of the river was to be situated in 
Canada, and was to be made over to the Canadian Government, and if all 
the regulating and controlling works and devices were to be situated 
wholly in Canada, then I say that I believe in my conscience they 
would not see fit to make the recommendation. 

With regard to the scenic effect of the rapids, that was very happily 
expressed by Mr. Cumberland. That you must look upon as an asset, 
and as a vested right, seeing so much money has been spent in develop- 
ing that particular trade. My friends over here argued that you were 
going to give something better. They were evidently like the Scotch 
lady who said, " The works of the Lord are great, but the works of men 
surpass them all." (Laughter). They are going to substitute this lock 
and this dam as something very picturesque and beautiful, to attract 
people from all over the world. I think the Richelieu & Ontario 
Navigation Co., which has built up this trade, is probably in as 
good a position as the Development Company or anybody else, to say 
what the people come to see. They come to see the greatest chain of 
rapids and the greatest rapids that are navigable in the whole world; 
and when, once, you dam that river, of course you will never have it 
again in the same position; you are doing it once for all. Navigation 
could never be the same on that river, after it is once dammed. We have 
been told that this project will improve navigation. I cannot discuss 



HEARING BEFORE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION 365 

this, for the same reason that you have ah-eady given me, that there are 
no plans drawn and none adopted, so that I cannot tell— I couldn't 
tell anyway — but engineers are unable to state what the current would 
be. There is a pilot here who has had very many years' experience on 
that river. Captain Battin. I have discussed it wjth him, and he 
expresses the greatest doubt and fear concerning the effect of these 
dams upon the currents. We do not know how high the dams are to be ; 
we do not know what the deflection of the water is to be. Of course, 
the pilots cannot tell until the effects upon the current have been 
figured out by engineers; but there is the root of the matter — that you 
are proposing to change the character of the navigation of that river 
altogether. 

Again, it is said that that should be done by the Government. I 
must admit that we would not be very much pleased with the Govern- 
ment if they were to dam it ; but we are not exactly in the same position 
if the Government should undertake it, for this reason, that if this 
private corporation does it, it does it in the interest of power develop- 
ment for dividend purposes. If the Government does it, the Govern- 
ment will do it primarily to take care of navigation. Why, sir, there 
is in this room at this moment one of the harbour commissioners of 
Montreal, and I heard him say, not three weeks ago, that there is a 
continual race between the production of the West and the transporta- 
tion f acihties of the East. We have developed only five per cent. , or less, 
of the arable lands of our Northwest. Less than five per cent, of the 
millions of acres there, that are goingto be producing have been scratched 
by the plough. Year by year, you are going to have a stupendous 
increase in the product of that Northwest. It must reach the sea; 
and the one great artery, the one great channel that must take care of 
the greater part of all that grain and produce of the Northwest is the 
St. Lawrence river — the St. Lawrence River route improved as Mr. 
Kennedy has suggested, or improved in some other way. I say that the 
paramount question before the Government of this country to-day is 
the question of transportation. I say that general consideration alone 
should make this Board hesitate to formulate any recommendation that 
will dam the whole of the river St. Lawrence, which is to be the great 
outlet for all this product of the Northwest. It has been conceded that 
navigation interests are paramount, and yet it is proposed to dam the 
whole river and to put the trade coming eastward, which now uses the 
rapids in the hands of a foreign, though very friendly, power, by giving 
that foreign power control of the single lock and regulating devices. 
It has been argued very eloquently indeed, that it is necessary to con- 
serve our natural resources, but it was stated that conservation means 
utilization, and the only way that we can conserve our natural resources 
is by using them. I ask whether it was seriously intended that this 



366 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

intelligent Commission and this company of people should believe that 
the way to conserve our national resources is to utilize them by handing 
them over to a private corporation, to be used for the purpose of making 
millions of dollars in dividends ? I say, sir, that is not the conservation 
of natural resources. I say we have a distinct interest in the Govern- 
ment carrying out this work, for the reason that when the Government 
does it, navigation will be made foremost, and power development will 
be incidental; whereas, at present, the whole scheme is a scheme of 
private enterprise — laudable enough — to obtain private dividends from 
our national heritage. (Loud applause.) 

Mr. Hilliaed: I spoke yesterday in reference to the legal position 
of the Ontario Government. I wish to speak to-day, of the feasibility 
of the damming of the Long Sault, and particularly in reference to the 
vested rights of the inhabitants of the county of Dundas and the village 
of Morrisburg, a constituency, represented in the legislature by Sir 
James Whitney. The experience of the residents of that district, 
coupled with the experience of the navigators of that district, should 
have weight, we think, with this Commission. It has been proven by 
actual test that when there has been an ice jam at Cornwall below the 
Long Sault, the river rose twenty feet there. This caused the river 
— open all the way — ^to rise twenty-one inches at the docks at Morris- 
burg. Speaking generally, that seems an utter impossibility, because 
of the great height of the Long Sault rapids. We are in a position to 
bring the witnesses to give that evidence under oath. We have not 
brought them here to-day because we were not sure of the mode in which 
that evidence would be received. Moreover, on three different occasions 
ice-bridges formed between Croil island and the main shore, immediately 
east of the Farran Point canal. The islanders, under cover of the night 
assist nature in the creation of these ice jams. They saw off the ice that 
forms in the bay early in the season, thus permitting it to swing around 
to the shore of the island, so as to form an ice-bridge. Between that 
point and the western end of Galop rapids, some thirty-five miles, the 
river is entirely open, and anchor ice and frazil ice form in large 
quantities. Then, snow blows off the large tracts of the ice of the bays 
along the shore into the river. Anyone passing along the shore on the 
IJundas County side, during the winter months may see this ice and 
slush and snow floating down the river in immense quantities. Such 
material caught on the ice-bridges, formed at Croil island in 1879, 1887, 
and 1905. It backed up at the rate of from half a mile to two miles a 
day. No appreciable damage was sustained until this slush and cakes 
of ice and anchor ice that formed at the bottom became wedged in, 
back to the narrow parts in the river. One of those places is known as 
Weaver point, about five miles above Croil island. At that point, the 
ice and the snow which cemented the cakes of ice were jammed in the 



HEARING BEFORE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION 867 

bottom. The ice then formed west of that and caused the water to rise 
above the layer below. On one night time a remarkable shove of ice 
occurred, shoving up upon the shore, lying between Weaver point and 
Cook bay, crushing down a dwelling house, overturning the stove, and 
setting the place on fire. The people escaped with their lives, however. 
In 1905 the whole channel of the river west of the village of Morrisburg 
was filled full of this anchor ice and snow, caused by a small dam at 
Croil island. It completely submerged the water-powers that the village 
of Morrisburg have leased from the Dominion Government. The powers 
were disabled for the time being, and the docks, the canal gates, 
and the canal bank was threatened with this ice. We have here a photo- 
graph of the condition of the river, showing the ice blockade (handing 
photograph to Chairman). This took place late in the month of 
February, when the sun had become fairly strong. Fortunately, too, 
the weather continued mild, so that a channel was worn through the ice. 
Here is a photograph of the same situation, showing the American shore 
and the islands. Dry island, which is now owned by Mr. Corrigan of 
Cleveland, was submerged. (Handing second photograph to Chairman) . 
Now, if at that particular time we had had zero weather- — which we 
often have in February — and a southwest wind, this jam would have 
carried away the lock gates, and would have inundated the greater 
portion of the village of Morrisburg. We have other photographs here, 
which show the banks of the river at Morrisburg completely inundated. 
One shows our power-house situated on the canal bank, with the water 
within a very short distance of the over-flow in the canal. The water 
rose so high as to put out the fires in our steam auxiliary. We had to 
get a temporary engine put up upon the canal bank to keep our p^amping 
apparatus in condition. These other photographs show all the boat 
houses and wharves completely submerged. 

What we say is this, that during the history of Canada, that has 
been handed down to us by the U.E. Loyalists that settled along the 
front of Dundas county, there has never been a gorge in the river 
except when man interfered. If the islanders, in their desire to secure 
bridges to drive over in the winter, had not swung this ice, we would 
never, have had these ice jams. Now, the pertinent point is this: As 
Mr. Rickey and Mr. Holgate say, the waters west of the Long Sault 
have a current of about two miles an hour, but ice will take early in 
December in this northern and rigorous climate. When the days are 
short and dark, and the accumulations of anchor ice, frazil and slush 
come down from the Galop rapids and those other rapids, and are 
collected, we will be having these ice jams annually, instead of at long 
intervals. But the Development Companies say, "Oh, we will take 
care of that." We would like to know who the "we" are, and we 
would like to know what facilities they have for protecting us from 



368 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

such jams. I do not agree with my learned friends who say they are 
satisfied with the ruling of the Chair to-day that the matter of detail 
will not be gone into, but that there will be a report as to the feasibility. 
With all due respect, the report on the feasibility only carries weight 
when the question comes up as to how these other interests are con- 
served or will be taken care of. The whole feasibility of damming the 
river depends upon how the vested rights along the river bank, and of 
the villages such as Farran Point, Osnabruck, Morrisburg, etc., are 
taken care of. Such vested rights have a prior claim. The Company 
says it will have ice-breakers. If a dam 40 to 45 feet high is bailt at 
the Long Sault, there will be, dead-water back to Farran Point, a 
distance of 5 or 6 miles. The Company tells us that it will raise the 
Water 2 inches at Morrisburg. How does it know ? There is not a man 
living can tell how much, in a tortuous river filled with islands, with 
different currents, the dam will affect the people of Morrisburg. Now, 
if such ice jams are allowed to form, the village of Morrisburg will be 
destroyed. I have seen these shoves take place. I have seen them 
cut off large trees on the banks of the river, hard maple, two feet thick 
at that. I have seen the people who live along the river front in the 
county of Dundas, remove all their implements, all their carriages, 
ever3rthing that could be moved, to the high land close to the Grand 
Trunk Railway line — which practically constitutes a height of land — and 
I have known them to keep watch by night fearing that these shoves 
would cause them to be flooded out at night time. Now, I say this is 
one of the tremendous effects that would be likely to result from the 
damming of this river at the Long Sault. Gentlemen, look at one 
patent fact. In a distance of fifty miles, from Prescott to Cornwall, 
the river drops ninety feet. West of Prescott, the river freezes over. 
There is no danger of anchor ice west of Prescott. There is no danger 
of any gorge west of Prescott. There is danger however, of a gorge at 
Cornwall and east, but nature provided for that. Lake St. Francis with 
its broad expanse and great depth, almost every winter takes care of 
this anchor ice that is formed in the running water to the west. Now, 
I can easily conceive that, if the proposed Long Sault dam made a com- 
plete bond, so that it would be frozen over entirely to Prescott, we 
would not have any particular objection to the project. While it would 
block out our power there, we might get compensation for our power in 
the shape of other power, or in the shape of being bought out. But 
when it only dams the water back so as to give us still water to Farran 
Point, we are in jeopardy. The current being " slow to two miles an 
hour," any man who knows the records of this northern climate, will 
understand that the river will freeze over. 

I say that, before this scheme is reported upon, this Commission 
should not make any interim report, but should ask for permission to 



HEARING BEFORE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION 369 

go into the details. This Commission was right, when at the King 
Edward hotel it asked that the fullest disclosure should be made. 
What will be the result if this Commission reports on the bald question 
that the project is feasible somehow, and somewhere and someway? 
That report will go to Congress and their Bill will go through. That 
report will go to Ottawa, and their Bill will go through. We cannot dis- 
sociate this question from the comphcations that are opening before the 
Parliamer ts. It is unalterably mixed up. Therefore, I say that no report 
should come from this Commission to either Government until the fuUest 
details have been obtained, and the whole report passed upon. If I 
understand the Commissioners aright, on the adjournment of this 
meeting, they propose to make a report to their respective Governments 
on the feasibility of damming the river, and to ask that before the 
plan of the incorporated companies be passed upon, we should have 
a chance to discuss it. Gentlemen of the Commission, the damage will 
then be done. If this Commission first, ask the various Governments to 
allow them to pass upon the plans before they recommend the feasi- 
bility of the scheme then, I think I can say we will all retire. (Hear, 
hear). Is it not possible for the Commission to ask for power to report 
upon the plans before any other report is made to the respective Govern- 
ments? I should be glad if the Chairman Would satify me as to that. 

Chairman Gibbons: I would try to answer that point, but I 
cannot speak for the whole Commission. I have told you what my own 
view oi the matter was. All those matters which you have just been 
talking about, have been looked into by Government engineers. I have 
had the benefit of their special information. This Commission is not 
learning all about this ice for the first time. All these matters have been 
reported upon and have been considered by people who think they 
understand, and they are being considered by the Commission. Now, 
my own idea was that we shall have cleared the deck by this discussion. 
It is impossible to thresh out in a meeting like this the details of a scheme 
of this kind. It never will be possible. The plans will have to be 
worked out very carefully, and a lot of provisions made that have not 
been even suggested here, but that have suggested themselves to the 
engineers of the Government and to the Commission. When these things 
are in shape to submit, my own idea— and I can only speak for myself 
here— is that the general public ought to be again taken into our 
confidence. If we agree at all that the matter is feasible, that then we 
should tell you what plans and what safe-guards have been provided, 
and that we should give the public a chance to see what those are, and 
approve or disapprove of them. 

Mr. Hilliard: Will that be before or after the Commission report 
to the respective Governments on the feasibility? That is the point 

24 



870 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

Chairman Gibbons: That is a question that I am not going to 
answer for the Commission. My own idea was to suggest that it might 
be possible to make a report that under certain circumstances — ^follow- 
ing much the line of Mr. Kennedy's remarks to-day — ^that, under certain 
conditions and subject to certain provisions, it was feasible. 

Me. Hilliabd : May I ask, how can the Commission report on the 
conditions and the safe-guards, without having all the detail plans? 

Chairman Gibbons: The engineers of our Commission and the 
engineers of the Government, who ought to know what they require, 
have thought that they had quite sufficient detail to enable them to 
form an opinion on the general character of the undertaking, subject 
to certain copditions. I am not an engineer. Both the Government 
engineers and the engineers upon the Commission have thought that they 
had sufficient data to deal with the general question. 

Me. Hilliakd: Then, Mr. Chairman, the public will not now have 
an opportunity to criticize the plans that have been submitted, and of 
which you have receiwd knowledge. 

Chairman Gibbons : I do not understand that any definite plans 
have been submitted. I understand that they are only dealing now 
with the general proposition. 

Mk. Hilliard: What we would ask, then, from the Commission, 
before they make any report, and what I would urge most strongly, is 
this : I would urge that those plans at least be submitted to the public 
before there is any report from this Commission. That is to say, having 
once entered upon the process of investigating this matter, that there 
should not be any investigation between the engineers of the Develop- 
ment Company and the engineers of the Government that will not go 
to the public before this Commission reports. That is the ground I take. 
It seems to me it would be most discourteous to the different parties 
who have been invited to appear here before the Commission, that the 
great and important part of the enquiry should be one in which the 
persons to the application should have a say with the Government, and 
the other parties only have an informal hearing before this Commission. 
Chairman Gibbons: I think we understand your argument. 
Mr. Hilliard: For instance, Mr. Chairman, I urge that a private 
report of the Dominion Government to the Chairman of this Waterways 
Commission takes us at a disadvantage. It eliminates the very thing 
that we are here to criticize. If this is to be the end of the enquiry here, 
then of course, on behalf of the Ontario Government, We will have to 
carry the question some place else. 

Mr. King: Mr. Chairman, I find myself in, a very, very difficult 
position. I do not like to be accused of "backing and fiUing." There 
has been some backing and filling. I must, however, on behaK of the 
interests I represent, impress very, very strongly, that there is no 



HEARING BEFORE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION 371 

shadow of an assent to the proposal such as might have been gathered 
from my rather acquiescent attitude a while ago. I made the statements 
I did under an Understanding which now turns out to have been rather 
a misapprehension, and I want to try to set the matter right; because I 
was disappointed — I say it with deference, Mr. Chairman — but I was 
disappointed in the understanding that the Commission gave yesterday 
to our previous agreement. I set the matter right now because I do not 
want to be at some time told that to-day we agreed, on behalf of the 
navigation interests, that the project was all right. What we said was 
that we were prepared to stand aside provided we were going to see all 
those plans. If there is no such understanding, then there is no 
agreement. 

Mr. Hilliard: There is a gentleman here from the vicinity of 
Morrisburg and Dundas, who lived there many years, who was brought 
up on the river, and would like to give some information.— Mr. Connolly. 

Mr. W. G. Connolly: Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of the Commis- 
sion. I am not here representing any other interests than my own. I have 
been a life-long resident of the vicinity of Morrisburg, and have interests 
on both sides of the river at the present time. I wish to say to you that 
the old residents generally along that river, in view of their past ex- 
perience with floods, are in abject terror of this scheme. I am, for one. 
On one occasion, I have seen an ice jam above the rapids, apparently 
harmless at the start, but which filled that river from top to bottom, 
and caused damage for a distance of 11 miles. There is no human 
agency that we know of that can take care of those ice jams. That is 
something that we believe is beyond the power of any Company or 
possibly any Government, under some conditions. Now, as I understand 
it, the crest of the dam that is proposed to be built, will be above the 
level of the upper reaches of the Cornwall canal. A horizontal line from 
the crest of that dam will come within ten feet of the surface of the St. 
Lawrence at Morrisburg, twenty miles above that point. It is equivalent 
to a submerged dam over 20 feet high in the bottom of that river. 

Mr. McCarthy: Mr. Connolly, are you interested in any other 
power scheme in that locality ? 

Mr. Connolly : No further than I have an investment in what is 
known as the Waddington power. I formerly owned part of that 
power. 

Chairman Gibbons: I do not understand Mr. King when he says 
he does not withdraw on account of some arrangement. I do not know 
that there has been any change between yesterday and to-day. As I 
understand, the Commission is now asked — and the pressure is because 
of action in Congress — to give an expression of opinion upon the general 
effect. Because of the communication from Congress to the American 
Commissioners we have had to deal with it. The Commission are 



372 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

unanimous, and have been all through, as I understand it, that if they 
do decide to express an opinion in favour they will suggest that one of 
the first conditions will be that these plans should be submitted to them 
and should be approved of by them. 

Commissioner Clinton: And must be approved. 

Chairman Gibbons: And must be approved before being sub- 
mitted even to the different Governments for their approval. Of course 
we can only suggest this ; and if they are submitted to us they certainly 
will be submitted to you and an opportunity given to criticize them. 
I do not know where the misunderstanding has arisen. I can only say 
that we will make this a condition of our report if we report at all in 
favour of the general scheme. 

Mr. King: Do we understand, Mr. Chairman, that that is a state- 
ment on behalf of the Commission, or the personal view of the chair? 

Chairman Gibbons: I spoke to General Ernst; I think that is 
the general view, is it? Do you agree? 

General Ernst: I have no objection in the world to that; but it 
seems to me a very great waste of time. I do not see how it is possible 
for an assemblage like this to settle on the details of an engineering plan. 
We want to hear all of your interests, every possible objection ycu can 
make; but, when it comes to settling the details of an engineering plan, 
I do not see how to get ahead in an assemblage like this. That is all. 
But I have no objection, at all, to submitting them to you, if that is 
your wish. 

Mr. King: Not necessarily, in a general assemblage. If the various 
interests that aje now diametrically opposed to the scheme were placed 
in a position to consult, with experts, that is really what we want, more 
than an opportunity given in a meeting of this kind, which is absolutely 
no opportunity at all, from my point of view. 

Chairman Gibbons: As far as I am personally concerned, as Mr. 
ICing will know, I am exceedingly anxious; I feel that you should have 
an opportunity and that you should avail yourselves of it by bringing 
experts who are independent, and who can give us the benefit of their 
opinion before this Commission. Mr. King will know that that is the 
ground I took as far back as the original meeting in Montreal. I have 
been anxious all along that you should have the benefit of independent 
experts. 

Mr. R. C. Smith: Would you allow the general manager of the 
Richelieu & Ontario Navigation Company to say a few words concerning 
his schedule of time? 

Chairman Gibbons: Certainly. 

Mr. C. J. Smith: In additionto the remarks of our counsel, Mr. R. 
G. Smith, I would hke to explain the basis on which our time card has to 
be made, and which this scheme will affect. We are forced to adopt 



HEARING BEFORE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION 373 

a time card by which our boats leave Toronto after the trains have all 
arrived from the western gateways and the boats from Niagara, which is 
three p.m. We then run on time card to Charlotte to connect with the 
trains leaving from that district via the gateway of Rochester to New 
York and central New York State points. They are there soon after 
we arrive, and, after we take the passengers that are brought in by the 
Rochester gateway, we go down to Kingston to make an early morning 
connection with the Grand Trunk sleeping cars that come in from the 
West. These sleepers carry passengers who had not arrived at Toronto 
at three o'clock, but have come down from Chicago and the west in the 
day time, going through from Toronto to Kingston at night in sleeping 
cars, where we take them at six o'clock in the morning. It is a matter 
of train connection. From there we run over to Clayton to get the 
passengers brought in by the New York Central lines from their 
different rail avenues, which trains arrive about seven a.m. From 
that point, it takes us all our time — being limited to those train connec- 
tions — to reach Montreal by daylight, to connect with our Quebec boats 
leaving there at seven p.m. On reaching Quebec, passengers are 
ferried across to Levis, to make rail connections with points on the 
Intercolonial and the Quebec Central lines. To do this, it is necessary for 
the boats to leave Montreal not later than seven p.m. Within the last five 
years the Richelieu & Ontario Go. to bring this about, to improve the con- 
ditions, and to build up the tourist business, has been obliged to build 
new steamers of a modern type, which will carry a much larger number 
of passengers and at a much higher rate of speed. This is necessary, 
because, in these days, you must give a service, even for tourists, that 
will meet competition from other water tourist lines and rail lines. 
Therefore, we cannot suit ourselves to the proposed new conditions 
without injury. We are told that, by using the new lock on the American 
side, it will only take us about half an hour more to reach Montreal. 
That might be the case, or it might not be the case. We have no 
information on that point, except the statements made by engineers 
representing this power scheme. At the present time, we have the 
advantage of currents before we reach the Long Sault, and advantage 
of currents after we have passed the Long Sault. What time we will lose 
we cannot say. Our pilots are not able to get any information, although 
it was promised to us in the meeting in November; but it has not yet 
been forthcoming. We feel, and I think we are right, that if they say 
half an hour, as we understand it, it is the half hour that will be lost in 
going through this 'lock. But supposing there are other big vessels there 
ahead of us, then we will be delayed that much longer. Even now, we do 
not always reach Cornwall on time. We have fogs to contend with, we 
have to Wait for train connections; but if we are unfortunate enough to 
be delayed we have a certain amount of slack time. This slack time will 



374 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

all be taken up, and more than taken up if we are obliged to run through 
any locks. If we were obliged to run through the Cornwall canal east- 
bound, it would take four hours, which would make it impossible to 
reach Montreal the same night, because we cannot run the rapids after 
dark. We would have to cancel the trip that these tourists had come 
into this country for the express purpose of making, and as a result 
the principal asset of our business would be destroyed. Ninety or 
ninety-five per cent, of our passengers come from the west and travel 
down in gradual steps and stages. We claim that it is the Long Sault 
rapids, the Thousand islands and the other rapids, that attract these 
tourists. Now, if you break a link in that chain you injure our business, 
and we do not know what the result will be. We can say this much 
about it, that if we are unfortunate enough to have an accident or break- 
down with our rapids boats, and we have to run the passengers by rail 
to Montreal, our business will drop off in the middle of the season from 
300 or 400 people a day to 50 people a day. That is the reason I wish to 
place before you this information respecting this time card. It is all 
based on the time card, and we can only maintain our schedule by 
leaving Kingston at six o'clock in the morning, and when days get 
shorter we have to leave Kingston at 5.30 in the morning. So that 
any impediment put in the navigation of this stream is a positive 
injury, and will result in very great and serious loss. 

Chairman Gibbons: Are there many more gentlemen to address 
the meeting, or are there any others who desire ? If there are further 
addresses, posssibly we had better adjourn for lunch. Are there any 
others ? 

Me. McCabtht: I do not think so. 

Chairman Gibbons : If there are no others who desire to address 
the meeting, I suppose the general meeting will close. 

Mr. Pringle: There is just one little statement I want to make in 
regard to what was said as to power in the east. I think it was made 
entirely under a misapprehension. I have in my pocket the corres- 
pondence dealing with that question of power. It was also stated by 
some gentlemen here that the east could get power at, I think, $12.00 
per horse-power at the plant — I do not know the technical term. First, 
it was stated generally at $12.00, and since then it has been modified to 
$12.00 at the plant. Now, I find the prices of power in this portion of 
Ontario to be contained in a document issued by the Hydro-Electric 
Power Commission of Ontario. Power at the plant is somewhere from 
$9 to $10; at the point of distribution, it runs from $18 up to $29.50. 
We do not know where this plant is — it has been unheard of in so far as 
any of us in eastern Ontario know — but I have the correspondence 
which we in Cornwall had with the Hydro-Electric Commission. We 
were most anxious to get power, and they could find no means of giving 



HEARING BEFORE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION 375 

us power in that district. We suggested one or two possible schemes for 
power; but we were informed that the one scheme suggested was 
entirely out of the question, and there were some indefinite suggestions 
about some power at Waddington. When we came to investigate 
that — 

Mr. Billiard: What is the date of that, Mr. Pringle? 

Mr. Pringle: This was in 1906, and continued for some time. I 
want to say that these are the prices for power. 

Mr. Hilliard: What is the date of that pamphlet? 

Mr. Pringle: 1908. 

Mr. Hilliard: Ithas been revised since. 

Mr. Pringle: Now, the prices as given here for power vary, 
Toronto being the cheapest at $18.10, and running up to $29.50 at St. 
Marys, $26 at Hespeler, $24 at Berlin, $26.50 at St. Thomas, and so on. 
I may say to you, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, that I do not think 
power at those prices would be of any great value to Brockville, Corn- 
wall or the other towns in the eastern districts. Now, you have had 
great patience, and I know that I am trespassing a little, but if you will 
just bear with me a moment I will soon conclude. We have had every- 
thing up here, from manufacturing tacks to beef trusts, and we have 
got away almost entirely from the issue. I was more than pleased with 
what Mr. Kennedy said, for we Canadians have the greatest respect for 
him. There is no man who is more conversant with the St. Lawrence 
river and its conditions than Mr. Kennedy, who for so long was con- 
nected with the harbour works of Montreal. I was very careful to note 
what Mr. Kennedy said, because it was the crux of the whole position. 
The question before you gentlemen is, " Is this scheme feasible ? " And 
Mr. Kennedy put it in a very nice and most comprehensive way, because 
he covered the whole thing that is before the Commission. He said that 
this work can be done wisely and safely. Now, is not that the whole 
position ? 

Mr. Hilliard: Would Mr. Pringle accept Mr. Kennedy's whole 
answer? 

Mr. Pringle: Just wait, Mr. Hilliard; I did not interrupt you. 
Mr. HiUiard gave us a very earnest discourse ; I would be very sorry to 
see our good friends at Morrisburg disturbed in any way by water. I 
think our engineers can meet Mr. Hilliard's views in regard to that. We 
are not dealing with that now, because I do not think it is pertinent here. 
It is not a question whether the gentlemen of Cornwall, or the Cornwall 
Board of Trade, would accept Mr. Kennedy's opinion. Mr. Kennedy 
has stated that this work can be done wisely and safely. It is a question 
of detail to be worked out by the respective Governments. I regret that 
somebody here had to refer to this Company as composed of " foreigners.'' 



376 COMMISSION OF CONSERVATION 

Why, the men who are to-day at the back of this Company have from 
two to three millions of dollars invested in the Dominion of Canada. 
That money would have been invested right near the town of Cornwall 
if the town of Cornwall had been in a position to give them power. The 
first time I ever saw Mr. Davis was when he came to the town of Corn- 
wall to see if there was a possibility of getting power. Now, look at our 
position; I will explain it to you briefly. Notwithstanding what any- 
body has said here, there is not one horse-power to-day on the north 
side of the St. Lawrence river that can be developed.* It is developed to 
the limit. There is not one horse-power on the south side of the St. 
Lawrence river at that locality that can be further developed;! it is 
developed to the limit. We now have to reach out into that river for 
further power. Representing as I do the town of Cornwall, my instruc- 
tions are, " Do everything possible to assist in getting the development 
of that power so long as Canadian interests are protected." A great deal 
has been said here in regard to government ownership. Surely that is 
not a question to be dealt with here. I do not know what views our 
American friends take in regard to private ownership as against govern- 
ment ownership. I do not know what view the Government of this 
country may take. Many of us as individuals favour private ownership 
with government control; I simply got up to correct an impression that 
may have got abroad that Cornwall at least — and I think I may speak 
for Brockville, may I not, Mr. Maclaren? 

Mr. Maclaren: Yes. 

Mr. Pringle: Brockville has never been offered power at $12 
per horse-power; and I think I may speak for Prescott and her manu- 
facturers that such a thing has never been heard of. It has been said 
here for the purpose of throwing a little more dust and creating a little 
more delay in getting a report on the feasibility of this project. 
If we accept the evidence of the experts brought here by those 
who are endeavouring to get the Bill, and take the evidence of Mr. 
Kennedy — he franldy admits the scheme is feasible — ^all that is necessary 
is that the work should be wisely and properly considered and properly 
done. Surely we have got confidence enough in those who represent us in 
Parliament, that they will see that the interests of all parties are amply 
protected, and that every detail in every possible way shall be gone 
into before this scheme goes through, which we all admit is a very large 
undertaking. I thank you very much, gentlemen, for giving me these 
few minutes. (Applause). 



*V, hen this statement was made there was a surplus 1,100 h.p. at the Mille 
Roches plant, five miles from Cornwall. — Ed. 

tThe Massena, N.Y. plant had 40,000 h.p. available, but the units had not 
been installed because there was no market for the power. — Ed. 



HEARING BEFORE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION 877 

Mr. Hilliaed: I would simply reiterate Mr. Beck's promise. The 
Government of Ontario is at stake in that promise, and the Government 
of Ontario are prepared to back it up. 

Chairman Gibbons: I suppose the Government of Ontario hold 
out no offer to the people of New York? 

Mr. Hilliard: No. 

Chairman Gibbons: This is purely an International matter, and I 
do not see that that can have a very great bearing. Is there anybody 
else who desires to address this meeting ? If not, we will adjourn. The 
public meeting is now adjourned. 

Meeting closed at 1.30 p.m. 



LA CHAMBRE DE COMMERCE DU DISTRICT DE MONTREAL 
Projets DE Barrage du St. Laurent atjx Rapides du Long Sattlt 

PAR DES COMPAGNIES PrIVEES 

La Chambre, apres avoir pris communication de la lettre de M. W. J. 
Stewart, de la section canadienne de la Commission Internationale des 
voies d'eau limitrophes, invitant notre Chambre h etre repri§sentee et 
k exposer son avis k cette Commission lors d'une seance k ^tre tenue le 8 
fevrier prochain k Toronto, sur une requite soumise par la " Long Sault 
Development Company of New York" et "The St. Lawrence Power 
Company of Ontario," croit devoir r6it6rer I'expression des vues 
exprim^es anterieurement, notamment k la suite de rapports d'un 
comit6 special d'ing^nieurs en date du 10 juillet 1905 et du 11 d^cembre 
1907 et s'en tenir a I'attitude que comportait un memoire presents par 
cette Chambre k cette Commission le 25 f6vrier 1909; 

La Chambre se declare en consequence opposee k tout projet qui 
aurait pour effet en aucune maniere de nuire aux int^r^ts de la navi- 
gation sur le St. Laurent, et elle croit devoir protester contre la demande 
de la St. Lawrence Power Company comme 6tant de nature k d^truire 
la valeur commerciale d'une des plus importantes ricbesses du pays. 

La Chambre decide en m6me temps de transmettre copie de cette 
resolution k la section canadienne de la Commission Internationale des 
voies d'eau limitrophes et au gouvernement du Canada. 

Adopte le 12 Janvier 1910. 

Pour copie conforme, 
Le Secretaire, 

(Signe) F. BOURBONNIERE 



INDEX 



A 

Page 

Act- 
re construction of bridges 

(U.S.) 11,237 

to incorporate Long Sault Dev. 

Co. (N.Y.) 2, 39, 46 

Acts re dams across navigable 

waters (U.S.) 11, 81, 230 

Air holes in ice 253 

Allan, J. G 23 

Allison, J. Wesley 70, 142 

correspondence of 273 

Aluminum Company of America.l3, 71 

capital stock of 14, 70 

contemplated investment of . . . . 74 
no obligation to improve navi- 
gation 81 

officers and business address of. 14 

president's statement 82 

Anchor ice 255 

danger of 257 

formation of 256 

Anderson, Wm. P 130, 132 

Appellate Court, decision of 4 

Arbitrators, appointment of 43 

Ashburton Treaty 27, 71, 196 

Astor vB. Arcade R.R. Co 51 . 

B 

Barnes, Prof. H. T 33, 252 

Barney vs. Keokuk 93 

Bamhart Island... 25, 40, 47, 51, 68, 
71, 157, 170, 196, 327 

Batten, Captain W. G 77 

Beck, Hon. Adam 306, 308, 323 

Bill, H. R. 14,531 8, 10, 68, 225 

opposition to 70 

Bill H. R. 22,207 144 

BillH. R. 22,950 11, 227 

Bill H. R. 25,707 7, 10, 104 

Bill H. R. 32,219 8, 10, 11, 156 

Bill H. R. 32,219, Report on 159 

improvement of navigation 166 

increased safeguards of navi- 
gation 168 



B— Cont'd. 

Page 

legislation of ^state of N.Y 160 

locus in quo 105 

opinion of committee on 169 

provisions of Bill 159 

rights of state of N.Y 161 

Bill No. 115, as introduced in H. 

ofC 113 

as passed by H. of C 117 

Bills. 6,795 149 

amendment to 152 

Bills. 10,558 10, 11, 170 

construction of works, time al- 
lowed for 171 

Bill S. 10,558, Report on 173 

amendments recommended.175, 181 

objects to be secured 166 

Bill S. 10,558, Hearings on 183 

application of Treaty of 1910 

to 200 

argument of G. R. Malby 207 

Ashburton Treaty 196 

ice jams 221 

joint action between Canada and 

U.S 219 

letter from J. P. Whitney 213 

memo, of C. E. Littlefield 215 

statement of Arthur P. Davis... . 210 

"C.E. Littlefield.... 192 

" " Senator G. T.Oliver 212 

" " Hon. G. R. Malby 188 

Bois Blanc island 28, 196 

Bolt, George C 70 

Bottom ice 266 

Bradford point 35 

Brockville, attitude towards Long 

Sault project 310 

Buffalo Pipe Line vs. N.Y. & Lake 

Erie R.R. Co 92 

Burd, Senator 5 

Bureau of Corporations 71 

Burton, T. E 173 

Butler, W. J 130, 132 



380 



INDEX 



Page 

Calvin Company 323 

Campbell, Peter Ernest 20 

Canada, duty of, re St. Lawrence 

waterway 38 

Canada's consent, question of... .2, 8, 
10, 28, 40, 47, 183, 189, 218 
Canadian Maniifacturers' Asso- 
ciation, protest of 217 

Canal Appraisers vs. Tihbits 93 

Carmody, Thomas, opinion of . .5, 45, 50 

Cayuga Bridge Co. vs. Magee 54 

Chambre de Commerce, Montreal 

70, 377 

Chandler-Dunbar Water Power 

Company 72 

Charlton, John F 14 

Claims, Act to provide for 67 

Clapp, G. H 14, 16 

Cleghorn, James P 20, 21 

Commerce, Committee of U.S. Sen- 
ate on 173,183 

Commission of Conservation. . .70, 338 

attitude on project 35, 325 

Connolly, W.C 23 

Constitutionality of Long Sault 

Dev. Co's. charter disputed. . .4, 50 
Cintour surveys along St. Law- 
rence 109 

Coonan, T.J 18 

Cornwall canal 18, 77, 107, 112, 326 

Cornwall, ice packs at 255 

Cornwall island, possession of 25 

Cornwall St. Ey. Light and Power 

Co., Ltd 20 

Correspondence of J. Wesley Al- 
lison — 

to Dr. J. D. Reid 275 

to Ed. Ogdensburg News 276 

to Sir W. Laurier 273 

Court of Appeals 4, 50, 57, 58 

Court of Claims 43, 49 

Coxe vs. The State 58, 60 

Crapser, John C 39 

Crichton, Jr., D. J 23 

Croil island 25, 157 

Cumberland, Barlow 281, 351 



D 

Page 

Dam Act of 1906 81 

Damage from proposed works of 

Long Sault Co 326 

Dam 

diversion of water by 36 

in South Sault Channel 10, 29 

Dam laws, general 230 

Dams and controlling works 106 

Dams, in rivers, compensation for . 100 
Davis, Arthur V 14, 16 

statement of 210 

Decker, George P 4 

Delaney island 35 

Denny, Archibald 20 

Derbyshire, Senator 321 

Des Plaines river 101 

Development Project, reasons 

against 35, 70, 273, 326 

Discharge of St. Lawrence in Feb. 

1887 262 

Diversion of water 36 

Dixon vs. Snetsinger 93 

Dominion Marine Association 70 



Economic Power and Construction 

Co. vs. City of Buffalo 50 

Electrical horsepower, rate of pay- 
ment on 48 

Eminent domain, power of 4, 88 

Evanson, F. S 281, 318 

Ewing, Samuel Hamilton 20, 21 

Exclxisive privilege defined 51 

Exportation of electric power.. 12, 328 



Farran Point 310 

Federal (U.S.) jurisdiction over 

navigable waters 7 

Flaherty, Michael H 39 

Floods 32, 110, 241, 260, 326 

Forest Preserve, New York State . 56, 63 

Foster, G. G 18, 322 

Foster, Samuel W 18 

Franchise, time limit of..3, 41, 171, 177 

Franchises, sale of 43, 49 

Frazil ice 254 

trouble to engineering works . 254,256 
Freeman, Mr., consulting engineer 

for Aluminum Co 72, 78, 83 

Fulton Light Co. vs. State of N.Y.. 92 



INDEX 



381 



Page 

Galop rapids 76, 249 

Gates, F. W 23 

Gauge readings 35 

Geary, G. R 218 

General Corporation Law, Section 

130 62 

general Electric interests, horse- 
power controlled by 71 

George Hall Coal Company 290 

Ghent, treaty of 24 

Gibbons, George C 280 

Gibbons, G. R 14, 16 

Gibbons vs. Ogden 94, 99 

Gillespie, D.L 14, 16 

Good Title vs. Kibbe 94 

Gooseneck island 258 

Government approval and inspec- 
tion 107 

Government Engineers (Canadian) — 

first report of l27 

second report of 131 

Grass river 35 

Gray, E. W. T 18 

Green Bay and M. Canal Co. vs. 

Patten Paper Co 96, 98 

Ground ice 256 



H 



Hall, CM 14, 16 

Hall, George, Coal Company 290 

Heckenby, J. T 23 

Hilliard, Irwin 70, 324, 366 

Hoboken vs. Penn. R.R. Co 94 

Hodge, Andrew 20 

Holgate, Henry 319 

Horsepower — 

cost of generating and profits on 83 

charges upon 41, 42, 48 

controlled by General Electric 

interests 71 

controlled by Westinghouse in- 
terests 71 

determination of amount gen- 
erated 42 

expected development of.. 30, 70, 105 

mechanical 42 

monopoly of 86 

percentage to be developed in 

U.S 30, 129 

possible development of.. . . 166, 174 



H— Cont'd. 

Page 

Humphreys, B. G 144 

Huse vs. Glover 95 

Hutcheson, Jas. A 314 

Hydro-Electric Power Commission 
(Ont.) 329 



Ice bridge at Cornwall 255 

Ice conditions — 

contemplated improvement in 

110, 112 

effect of power development on. 258 
statement of J. W. Rickey re 

260, 271 

in Feb. 1887 262 

opinions respecting 31 

Ice — 

effect of dams on 33, 258 

factors causing jams 32, 262 

floods from..32, 78, 110, 241, 260, 326 

frazil 128, 254, 256 

freeing river of 33 

opinion of Prof. Barnes on..34, 252 

thickness in St. Lawrence 253 

types of 252, 256 

Ice jams.... 32, 33, 78, 260, 326, 368 
statement of J. W. Rickey re.. . 260 

Ice packs 252, 255 

Ice shoves 253, 255 

Illinois Central R.R. Co. vs. Illi- 
nois 60, 62, 93 

Infusoria in anchor ice 257 

International Waterways Com- 
mission 70 

International Waterways Com- 
mission, Proceedings before .... 282 

attendance at 280 

discussion after J. W. Rickey's 

address 299, 301 

discussion re change of river 

level 309 

inability to settle questions of 

jurisdiction 325 

interest of Brockville in Long 

Sault development 310 

lack of information afforded to 

304, 332 

second session of 331 

Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 
committee on 101 



3S2 



INDEX 



J 

Page 

Johnston vs. Spicer 51 

Jurisdiction over Long Sault, Can- 
adian 38,328 

Jurisdiction, U.S. Federal, over 
navigable waters 7, 98 

K 

Kaukauna Water Power Go. vs. 
Green Bay and Mississippi Can- 
al Co 96 

Kelley, H. G 320 

Kennedy, John 76, 167, 335 

King, Francis 343 

Kingman, Abner 20, 21 

Bangston Board of Trade, resolu- 
tion of 345 

L 

Lachine rapids 255 

Lafleur, Eugene D. 130, 132, 349, 350 

Lake Shore & M. Ry. vs. Ohio 99 

Langdon vs. Mayor 94 

Land ofSce, commissioners of. ..48, 59 
Land under water, ownership of . . . 59 

Lawrie, A. K 14, 16 

Laws of 1875, chapter 257 62 

Laws of 1893, chapter 332 56 

Littlefield, C. E 70, 184, 192 

Logan, Captain J. H 77 

Long island 58 

Long Sault Bills, primary object 

of 7 

Long Sault Dam Project — 
attitude of Montreal Harbour 

Commissioners 335 

interest of Ontario in 324 

Long Sault Development Com- 
pany 13, 46 

Act of Incorporation 2, 39, 46 

repealed 6, 65 

act to provide for claims pre- 
sented by 67 

capital stock of 43, 50, 70 

charter of, discussed 4 

compensation provided for by 

charter 82 

danger in proposals of 29 

exclusive privilege granted to. . 56 
expenditure prior to authori- 
zation by Congress 4, 75 



L— Cont'd. 

Page 

memorandum of 89 

number of directors 44, 50 

parent and allied corporations ... 13 

proposed works of 105 

return of monies to, by State ... 66 

Long Sault island.. 35, 39, 40, 47, 51, 

58, 68, 71, 196, 327 

possession of 25 

Long Sault rapids . 77, 249, 328, 353, 364 

M 

Mackenzie, Gen 100, 101, 163 

MacKinnon, C. Gordon 18 

Maclaren, William Chalmers... 20, 310 

Malby, Hon. G. R 10, 30, 68, 183, 

188, 207, 227 
Manufacturers' Association, Can- 
adian 217 

Market for power 328 

Martin vs. Waddel 94 

Massena Electric Light and Power 

Company 13 

certificate of incorporation 140 

McGuigan, Francis H 20 

McKergon, John 20, 21 

Mellon, A. W 14, 16 

Mellon, R.B 14 

Memorial in opposition to danoming 
St. Lawrence — 

of Capt. W. J. Murphy 249 

of Commission of Conservation 326 
of Iroquois village and Williams- 
burg township 242 

of Morrisburg municipal council. 240 

Meredith, F. E 308 

Michigan Lake Superior Power Co. 85 

Milles Roches 18 

Miscellaneous construction 107 

Mohawk Bridge Company vs. U. & 

S. R.R. Co 55 

Monongahela Nav. Co. vs. U.S 96 

Monopoly of power 327 

Montreal Board of Trade..70, 193, 281 

memorial of 278 

Montreal & Cornwall Nav. Co 289 

Montreal Harbour Commissioners, 

70, 76 

Montreal, Chambre de Commerce 

70,377 

Morrisburg HI, 240 



INDEX 



383 



N 

Page 

Navigable waters, jurisdiction 
over 7, 38, 328 

Navigation — 

improvement of 112, 166 

interference witli. .31, 36, 75, 248, 
269, 327 

proper security of 176 

provisions of Long Sault Go's, 
cliarter, re 6, 39, 41 

Newspaper propaganda 23 

New York and Ontario Power Com- 
pany 21, 22 

certificate of incorporation of . . . 142 

New York Board of Trade 70 

New York, state of — 

legislation of 2, 39, 65, 67, 160 

resolution of Senate of 45 

title to bed of St. Lawrence of 

60, 92, 161 

violation of constitution of. .. .4, 50 

Niagara County Irrigation Co. vs. 
College Heights Co 92 

Noble, Mr., engineer 76, 78 

Norcross, J. W. and Co 287 



Ogden, David A 22 

Ogdensburg Coal & Towing Co.. . . 290 

Oliver, G. T 170 

Open channel, advantages of 253 

Open water near Long Sault 258 



P— Cont'd. 

Page 

Power, exportation of 12, 328 

Power-houses and lock 39, 106 

Prescott 255, 258 

Property, power of sale of 43, 49 

Proposed works — 

general location of 106 

menace of 31 



R 



Radiation of heat 256 

Redpath, John Dougall 20, 21 

Remedy for unconstitutional 

grant 61 

Repeal, power of 62 

Reservation of lands of XT.S. . . 151, 154 
Richelieu and Ontario Navigation 

Co 70,76,129 

opposition to Long Sault dam 
project 361 

protest of 216 

time card of 372 

Rickey, James W...20, 23, 24, 30, 32, 
33, 34, 84, 105, 266, 295 
Riparian owners, compensation to. 174 
Rivers and Harbours, Committee 

on 30, 70, 89, 104, 159 

Roosevelt, Theodore 100, 101 

Rumsey versus New York & New 

England R.R. Co 94, 99 



Packer vs. Bird 93 

Payments to be made by Long 

Sault Co 41, 49 

People versus — 

Fisher 57 

Gillette 93 

N.Y. & S. I. Ferry Co 60, 94 

Supervisors of Chautauqua 51 

Tibbetts 97 

Physical data 34 

Playfair, James 291 

Pollard's Lessee versus Hagan. ... 94 

Polly creek 35 

Polly gut 255 

Power development, effect on navi- 
gation... 31, 36, 75, 112, 166, 248, 
259, 266, 327 



Sands vs. Manistee R. Improve- 
ment Co 96 

Sault Ste. Marie river 72 

Scenic beauty of St. Lawrence.108, 312, 

328 

Scranton vs. Wheeler 93 

Secretary for War (U.S.), powers 
over navigable waters of. . . 144, 167 

report to 163 

Sheek island 25, 40, 47, 51, 68, 170 

Sheet ice 252 

Shively vs. Bowlby 93 

Sifton, Clifford, memorandum of. . 326 

Slime caught by anchor ice 257 

Slushice 254 

Smith, Franks 39 

Smith, R. C 359 

Soulanges canal 18 



384 



INDEX 



S— Cont'd. 

Page 

South Sault channel. .31, 36, 267, 312, 

327 
Sovereign control of State, contra- 
vention of 61 

State engineer (N. Y.) 42 

Staten island 58 

State ownership of river bed . 60, 92, 161 

State Reservation, Matter of 92 

Stevens, Gardner 18 

St. Francis, lake 252, 255, 258 

St. George island 27 

St. Lawrence, county of 39, 56 

St. Lawrence County Electric & 

Water Co 13 

St. Lawrence Power Co. (Canada) 

4, 13, 15, 16, 17, 109 

act to incorporate 121 

St. Lawrence Power Transmission 

Co 13, 20 

act to incorporate 113, 117 

St. Lawrence river — 

deepening of 31, 36, 327 

international character of 71 

jurisdiction over 7, 62, 38, 328 

St. Lawrence Securities Co 14 

St. Lawrence Transmission Co. ... 13 

cert, of incorporation of 137 

increase in number of directors. . 139 
St. Lawrence Water Company. ... 13 

St. Louis, lake 252 

Stormont Electric Light & Power 

Co 20, 21 

St. Peter, lake 252 

Subjects embraced in Long Sault 

charter 57 

Sulger, Governor 6 

Sua Life Assurance Co. 13, 20 

Sun's action on frazil and anchor 

ice 257 

Supreme Court of the United 
States, decision as to title to 

bed of navigable streams 60 

Surface ice 252 

Surplus power, diversion of.. . . 12, 328 
Surveys, contour, along St. Law- 
rence 109 

Sweet vs. city of Syracuse 95 



Page 

Taft, Wm. H.. . .57, 85, 100, 101, 163 

Third parties, protection of 167 

Thomson, James A 23 

Thousand Island Steamboat Com- 
pany vs. Visger 93 

Toronto Board of Trade. .70, 218, 351 

Tourist traffic 34, 108, 312 

Towner, Neil F 16 

Transportation companies, effect 

of proposed works on 108 

Treaty— 

Ashburton 27, 71, 196 

International Boundary Waters 11 

of Ghent 24 

rights of Canada, memorandum 

respecting 24 

Tucker, B. B 23 

U 

Unconstitutionality of Long Sault 
Dev. Go's Charter 4, 50 

Union Ferry Company case • • . • 53, 55 

United States federal control over 
navigable streams 7, 98 

United States Supreme court 62 



Vested rights 327 

W 

Waddington, N.Y 22, 70 

Warren, Henry H 39 

Water-power, contemplated de- 
velopment of 30 

Watson, G. H 346 

Webster, Daniel 27 

Westinghouse interests 71 

White, James 24, 325 

Willson, Walter F 39 

Wilson, James 23 

Wiser, Phillip Isaac 20 

Withers, R.E 14, 16 

Wolfe island ■. 26 

Works, time for completion of, 

11, 41, 48, 171 

Wright, Mr. A. A 332 



Young, H.0 156