The CHAIRMAN. You have just testified 25 percent of them could not do it.

General PICK. That is with their full draft. That is loaded full with a full storage of fuel aboard, and everything like that.

But it is customary and it is a common practice for ships to go into the smaller ports and then go to the larger ports and pick up the rest of their load and move out. They could pick up their full load at Montreal and move out into the deep water with the maximum draft that any of them have.

The CHAIRMAN. They could unload all they have got and navigate it, probably, but your attitude is that you want to build this canal when you admit that 25 percent of American ships cannot use it; you want to tax them and tax the rest of the country to pay for a seaway that only 75 percent, according to your own testimony, could ever use. Isn't that true?

General PICK. I think that the great majority of them can use it advantageously, sir, if the cargo is there to be lifted and I think they will go for it if the cargo is there, and I think the cargo will be there. The CHAIRMAN. There are a good many "ifs" in your statement; if so-and-so, and if so-and-so. I am talking about, leaving out all the "ifs," whether or not they can do it normally and economically and profitably? You have already testified that 25 percent of them could not do it.

General PICK. Not loaded to their full draft.

The CHAIRMAN. What do you want to do, send them in there with a half draft? Is that your idea of shipping, that they should not carry but a half load?

General PICK. Mr. Chairman, it is the common practice in the shipping world today. They go in Chesapeake Bay down here at some of these ports and they load out and they go and top off when they get to where they can get water that will take the full draft of their vessels, if the tonnage is available.

The CHAIRMAN. If the tonnage is available. How is the tonnage going to be available on a frozen-up river 5 months in the year? General PICK. The tonnage might be there, sir, but you could not get through in the winter season.

The CHAIRMAN. Any further questions?

Senator MCMAHON. General, would you please give us, and send me a copy, personally, a concise memorandum of what your opinion is as to what will happen to the power if we do and if we do not? General PICK. What will happen to the power?

Senator MCMAHON. Yes; what will be the prognosis on the power situation? What effect will that have on the power development of this project if we join in it, or if we do not? I am interested in that question.

General PICK. Mr. Chairman, the Corps of Engineers does not have any responsibility in connection with power disposition.

Senator MCMAHON. Perhaps the Federal Power Commission might be the proper one to ask about that. I will ask the Power Commission.

(Subsequent to these hearings the following information was received from the Federal Power Commission :)

[Letter from Federal Power Commission, March 7, 1952]

Hon. Toм CONNALLY,

FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION,

Washington, March 7, 1952.

Chairman, Foreign Relations Committee,

United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

DEAR CHAIRMAN CONNALLY: In response to your informal request I have given consideration to the following questions concerning the development of the International Rapids section of the St. Lawrence River:

I. Could the development as proposed by the Army engineers be undertaken as a joint enterprise by the United States and Canada?

II. If the United States does not join with Canada, could Canada alone construct the proposed seaway and power development?

and submit herewith the following answers:

I. If Congress through appropriate legislation so authorizes, the United States itself can join with Canada in the construction of either the seaway or the power development or the combined seaway and power development as proposed by the Army engineers. In the absence of additional legislation, the United States itself would not be authorized to participate with Canada in such construction. II. If Congress does not pass legislation authorizing the United States itself to join with Canada in constructing the seaway and power development recommended in the plan of the Army engineers, Canada alone could not construct that development. Canada could, of course, construct a seaway or a power development or a combined development without the approval of the United States, provided all such facilities are located entirely within Canada and provided such facilities would not affect the levels or flows of the international stream. However, such development would differ from that proposed by the Army engineers.

However, a combined seaway and power development with the seaway being located in Canada could be built by Canada and a licensee of this Commission without further legislation by Congress. A license could be issued under the Federal Power Act to citizens of the United States, to any association of such citizens, to any corporation organized under the laws of the United States or any State thereof, or to any State or municipality authorizing the construction, operation, and maintenance of those parts of the Barnhart Island Dam and powerhouse located within the United States (16 U. S. C. 797e). This license covering the United States portion of the proposed power project in combination with Canadian development of power and seaway facilities on the Canadian side would permit development of a seaway and power project which, however, would vary from that proposed by the Army engineers.

As I advised you in my letter of February 21, 1952, the application of the Power Authority of the State of New York for a license for the power development was denied by the Federal Power Commission on December 22, 1950, because the Commission was of the opinion that the combined development should be made by the United States itself, and a report to that effect was submitted to Congress.

The foregoing answers are given without regard to such approvals as may be required from the International Joint Commission under the International Boundary Water Treaty of 1910.

Sincerely yours,

THOMAS C. BUCHANAN, Chairman.

Now just one final question. General, we have spent hundreds of millions of dollars in digging out our harbors, have we not? General PICK. Yes, sir.

Senator MCMAHON. Was it to accommodate just a very few vessels of the merchant marine?

General PICK. to accommodate the vessels of the world, sir.
Senator MCMAHON. All right.

Senator GEORGE. General, may I ask you just a few simple questions?

General PICK. Yes, Senator.

CANADA'S PHYSICAL AND LEGAL ABILITY TO BUILD CANAL

Senator GEORGE. I am asking because I want to get the facts.

Can Canada develop this waterway, the St. Lawrence seaway, without any cooperation on our part? I am not speaking of financial ability to do it, but I mean assuming that she has the means, can she do it?

General PICK. If I understand correctly, sir, whether it is legally possible for Canada to do it alone?

Senator GEORGE. Legally and physically possible for her to do it alone, assuming that she has adequate means?

General PICK. It is physically possible, sir, for Canada to dig the canal, build the locks, build the powerhouse, and operate the seaway facility on her side of the river. Failing action under the 1941 agreement she proposes to so build the seaway in the international section concurrently with the construction of the power phase in the international section by Ontario jointly with an appropriate agency in the United States, under a permit from the International Joint Commission.

Senator GEORGE. The question is in good faith. It may sound simple to you. What is the advantage we get by going into the joint venture with Canada?

General PICK. The primary advantage-I mean the practical advantage would be having a voice in establishing rules and regulations and tolls for operating through the seaway canal.

Senator GEORGE. In other words, to have joint control?

General PICK. A joint control of an international project, a project along an international boundary. Mr. Chairman, as I see it, it would be to our very great advantage to cooperate with Canada from an international viewpoint on any undertaking along that border, like we have in the past.

If Canada builds that canal on the Canadian side of the river, they would have the right to fix the rules and the regulations and set tolls. If, in years to come, that waterway was administered in a manner which would shut it off from use by the United States or which, in any way, would be discriminatory against the United States, I believe it would cause us trouble.

Senator GEORGE. Could it be so operated?
General PICK. I do not know, sir.

DEPENDABLE GUARANTIES AGAINST DISCRIMINATION

The CHAIRMAN. Assuming that Canada did proceed and build this seaway, could she, sometime in the future, if she wished to, discriminate against us or shut it off to a point where we could not use it? It would be within the power of Canada to do that, would it not? General PICK. I think they could, sir, if they wanted to, but if they did it would violate existing treaties.

Senator GEORGE. Now, I am coming to the one thing that I have in mind: That being true, is it not the most irresponsible proposal

that could be made to our Government to enter into an agreement of this kind that will cost a great deal of money and may cost very much more than we now estimate, without having absolute guaranties on which we can depend that there will not be any discrimination or any power in Canada to close it up?

General PICK. I think that a joint agreement would take care of the situation.

Senator GEORGE. Now, General, that is just where the trouble is. When you make a joint agreement the other fellow may back out of his agreement, but if we had a firm treaty, a firm treaty that gave us these rights, then we would have, if there is any place on this earth where you can have treaties in force that are respected and treaty rights protected, we would have some say so about it. But here is just a plain proposition, that we are so anxious to get into it, until we are perfectly willing to come in here and say we are going to make an agreement which we very well know that another Congress can undo and the Canadian Parliament could undo if it wished to.

I am not saying they would. That is not the point. But I am saying that when nations deal with each other, though they be friendly nations, they had better do it on a firmer basis than agreements and arrangements which can be upset, can be overthrown.

This resolution that is before us recognizes that and calls on us to go ahead after we put money into it and become involved in it and become committed to it, and then negotiate a treaty. It recognizes that somewhere there must be a treaty. Here is a disposition on the part of the executive branch of this Government to enter into the construction of foreign commercial facilities that will last for the indefinite future. You speak of it being self-liquidating within 40 or 45 years. I am not quarreling about that. But we are so lacking in discernment that we propose to go ahead without doing the thing that is open to us if we wish to do it, through a treaty that will protect our rights, and will make it impossible for our joint copartner in the enterprise to wiggle around to a point in the future, under unfriendly governments that may spring up here and over there, and make the whole thing worthless to us.

I am not suggesting that Canada will do that and I am not suggesting that any other country would do that. What I am suggesting is that the executive branch of this Government, if it does less than protect our rights in a joint venture of this mammoth proportion is a bit soft in the head.

INSURANCE FOR UNITED STATES RIGHTS

I simply say that there is not any possible justification, in my way of looking at this thing, unless you are going to proceed with a treaty which will protect our rights and which will guarantee our rights, and I think we are becoming childish in this country in assuming so many things and committing ourselves so widely on every sort of project that looks good.

I am not quarreling about the merits of it. But on the legislative side and on the side of the Government down here we certainly should be a bit patient and do the thing in a way that would guarantee our full rights and would protect our full rights as far as it is humanly possible to do so.

96175-52--34

Now I do not ask you to go into a discussion, but I ask you the simple question: Whether Canada could build the seaway if she wished to and had the money, and whether, if she did do it, she could use it in such a way as to be harmful and hurtful to us and our interests and might, as you suggest, lead ultimately to some international friction?

I draw my own conclusions. If that is a fact and when you begin to create the facilities that must be absolutely vital and necessary in international commerce and trade through a whole century ahead, that then we are skating on much thinner ice than the ice in the St. Lawrence waterway for 4 months of the year. I do not know how I could excuse myself as a Senator for committing my country to this sort of a program in this sort of a way. It may be that it should be done and that precisely what you say is correct and what others have said, and I am not disposed to quarrel about that. But I do know you have no way to protect your right if it lies within the other man's power.

General PICK. That is the practical side of it, sir, the practical situation. I fully believe Canada is going to build that waterway. I fully believe they need it. I fully believe that they have made up their mind to go ahead and build it. I think it would be much better if we did it as a joint undertaking. I think it would serve us better in the years to come if we had a voice in the operation of that great project.

Senator GEORGE. I see your point.

General PICK. That is my honest opinion, Senator.

Senator GEORGE. I am saying to you that this thing does not give you joint control of it, not any longer than Canada might want to, or might find it profitable to cooperate with us. I assume she would for, maybe, indefinitely. If she did, it would not be so very vital whether we went in or not, if they are going to treat us precisely right and agree with us on tolls and regulations and restrictions. But I am just getting around to the point where as I have said just now, there is no guaranty on this earth-that is, as far as you can make guaranties that may be respected and kept by nations-in this sort of a joint enterprise that we would enter into. But of course you are the engineer.

General PICK. That is outside my field.

Senator GEORGE. Somewhat outside of your field, that is right. General PICK. Under the joint project, the canal would be on the United States side of the line.

Senator GEORGE. That would be to our advantage.

General PICK. That is to our advantage. On the Canadian proposal, all of the structures would be on the Canadian side of the boundary line.

Senator GEORGE. I can understand that, General; yes.

General PICK. The ship lane would cross the international boundary at only one or two points in the water, and that could be avoided. Senator GEORGE. I understand. I simply wanted to get a simple picture of what Canada might do and if she can do it without our aid, she certainly can do so after we go ahead and make this vast investment for the future.

The CHAIRMAN. Before you conclude, I want to ask you a question, Senator, in connection with this matter.

Senator GEORGE. Yes, sir.