the committee to act on the convention until the Royal assent shall have been given to the Canadian legislation. The Chairman desires to bring the convention up for final action at the earliest possible moment. Unless approval of the convention is given by the Senate during the present session of Congress, which probably will adjourn within a short time, it may not be possible to bring the convention into operation before the beginning of the proposed close season in November next, the effective operation of the convention thereby being postponed for another year. This Government is hopeful that the Governor General will find it convenient to give his formal assent at an early date to the Halibut Fishery Amendment Act recently passed by the two houses of the Canadian Parliament. Accept [etc.] 711.428/813 CHARLES E. HUGHES The British Ambassador (Howard) to the Secretary of State No. 479 WASHINGTON, May 28, 1924. SIR: I have the honour to refer to the note which you were so good as to address to me on the 27th instant regarding the convention for the preservation of the Halibut Fishery of the Northern Pacific, signed on March 2nd, 1923, and to inform you that I am in receipt of a communication from the Government of Canada to the effect that the Halibut Fishery Amendment Act, recently passed by the two Houses of the Canadian Parliament, received the Royal assent on the evening of the 27th instant. The Bill in question thus becomes effective as law. I have [etc.] 711.428/813a ESME HOWARD The Secretary of State to the British Ambassador (Howard) WASHINGTON, June 4, 1924. EXCELLENCY: I have the honor and the pleasure to inform you that the Senate, by its Resolution of May 31, 1924, gave its advice and consent to the ratification of the Convention between the United States and His Britannic Majesty for the preservation of the halibut fisheries of the northern Pacific Ocean and including Bering Sea, signed at Washington on March 2, 1923, and that I shall be prepared to effect the exchange of ratifications at your convenience. Accept [etc.] 8 8 CHARLES E. HUGHES Ratifications exchanged at Washington, Oct. 21, 1924, by the Secretary of State and the Minister of Justice for Canada; proclaimed by the President, Oct. 22, 1924. RENEWED CONSIDERATION OF A JOINT PROJECT FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE ST. LAWRENCE WATERWAY' 711.42157 Sa 29/106 The Secretary of State to the British Chargé (Chilton) WASHINGTON, November 17, 1923. SIR: The Ambassador informed me by his note No. 431 of June 3, 1922 10 that the Canadian Government had not had opportunity to give to the report of the International Joint Commission in regard to the St. Lawrence River improvement scheme and the accompanying report of the engineers the careful consideration which the importance of the subject merits and that on account of the magnitude of the project and the large outlay of public money involved the Canadian Government was of the opinion that it was not expedient to deal with the matter at that time. Because of the interest which continues among the people of the United States in the project for the improvement of the St. Lawrence River, I have the honor to inquire whether the Canadian Government would now be inclined to give consideration to the matter and to enter into negotiations along the lines suggested in my note of May 17, 1922.11 Accept [etc.] 711.42157 Sa 29/150 CHARLES E. HUGHES The British Chargé (Chilton) to the Secretary of State No. 97 WASHINGTON, January 30, 1924. SIR: I have the honour to refer to the note which you were so good as to address to me on November 17th last, regarding the St. Lawrence River improvement scheme and to inform you, by request of His Excellency the Governor-General of Canada, that the Dominion Government have had under consideration the contents of your note addressed to Sir Auckland Geddes on May 17th, 1922. In that note you suggested either the immediate conclusion of a treaty looking to the development of the St. Lawrence waterway along the lines recommended by the International Joint Commission in its report and providing for the constitution of a Joint Commission charged with the formulation of a complete plan which would be subject to the approval of the two Governments, or, alternatively, the constitution of a Joint Commission of experts to make preliminary studies and investigations and to frame the draft of a treaty. For previous correspondence concerning the St. Lawrence Waterway, see Foreign Relations, 1922, vol. 1, pp. 677 ff. 10 Ibid., p. 679. "Ibid., p. 677. The Dominion Government point out that the report of the International Joint Commission recommended that, before any work was carried out, the Joint Engineering Board, whose proposals it generally approved, should be enlarged, and that once so enlarged the said Board should further consider the technical aspects of the problems in detail and decide upon the plan which should be adopted. While the Government of Canada desire to give further consideration to the suggestions put forward in your note of May 17th, 1922, they are of opinion that the proposal made by the International Joint Commission should be acted upon without further delay. The Dominion Government are accordingly prepared to appoint additional engineers to enlarge the Joint Engineering Board with a view to the Board undertaking the preparation of a final report covering the engineering features of the whole project, including its cost. The Government of Canada intend, further, to form a committee which will, in consultation with the Canadian members of the Joint Engineering Board, enquire fully from a national standpoint into the wide questions involved, and they hope shortly to be in a position to take further action on the proposals made by the United States Government. Meanwhile the Government of Canada would be glad to learn the views of the United States Government in regard to the number of additional engineers who should be appointed by each Government to the Joint Engineering Board. The Dominion Government are also ready to nominate one or more technical officers to discuss with similar United States officers the form which the instructions to the enlarged Joint Engineering Board should take, and the time within which the Board should be directed to report. In expressing the hope of the Government of Canada that the above proposals will be agreeable to the United States Government, I have the honour to inform you that Lord Byng of Vimy would be grateful if arrangements could be made by telegraph for their publication simultaneously in Washington and Ottawa. I have [etc.] 711.42157 Sa 29/150 H. G. CHILTON The Secretary of State to the British Chargé (Chilton) WASHINGTON, February 27, 1924. SIR: In your note of January 30, 1924, in regard to the project for joint action by the United States and Canada for the improvement of the St. Lawrence River between Montreal and Lake Ontario for navigation and the development of water power, you informed me that while the Government of the Dominion of Canada desires to give further consideration to the suggestions brought forward in my note of May 17, 1922, to Sir Auckland Geddes with a view to carrying out the recommendations made by the International Joint Commission, the Dominion Government is nevertheless prepared to act without delay on the recommendation for the enlargement of the Joint Engineering Board which assisted the Commission in making the investigation of the project and to appoint additional engineers to the Board with a view to having it undertake the preparation of a final report covering the engineering features of the whole project, including its cost. You informed me also that the Government of Canada intends to form a committee which will in consultation with the Canadian members of the Joint Engineering Board, inquire fully from a national standpoint into the wide questions involved in the project. In reply permit me to say that this Government is gratified to learn that the Canadian Government hopes shortly to be in a position to take further action on the proposals made in my note of May 17, 1922, and meanwhile is especially pleased to be advised that the Government of Canada intends to create a committee for the purpose described in your note. This Government, similarly, will immediately constitute a national committee which will in consultation with the American members of the Joint Engineering Board make adequate inquiry from a national standpoint into the questions involved to the end that the project for the improvement of the St. Lawrence River for navigation and the development of its water power may be carried forward as speedily as possible. This Government is glad to give its assent to the suggestion that the Joint Engineering Board should be enlarged and, in response to the request of the Canadian Government for its view as to the number of additional engineers which should be appointed, suggests that two engineers be added to the Board by each Government, the membership of the Board thus being increased to six, three of whom would be representatives of the United States and three would be representatives of Canada. In connection with this enlargement of the Board it may be noted that the first of the recommendations made by the International Joint Commission was that the Governments of the United States and Canada enter into an arrangement by way of treaty for a scheme of improvement of the St. Lawrence River between Montreal and Lake Ontario. It would appear that the Commission did not contemplate that negotiations for a treaty should be postponed until after a report should be made by an enlarged board of engineers but that negotiations should forthwith be opened, that the proposed works between Montreal and Lake Ontario should "be based upon the report of the Engineering Board" accompanying the report of the Commission, and that the Governments should have the benefit of the advice of an enlarged Board of Engineers before a "final decision" should be reached. This Government would propose that the instructions to the enlarged Engineering Board should be prepared in joint conference by the two advisory committees which the Governments of Canada and the United States intend to establish, as indicated in your note and this reply, and that the two committees should accordingly be empowered to meet in joint conference for the purpose of formulating such instructions. However, the instructions would be given to the Board of Engineers by the Governments and the report of the engineers would be made to the Governments. As it appears that the report of the Board of Engineers of June 24, 1921, while of a preliminary character, as contemplated in their instructions, nevertheless presented a general plan believed to be practicable in its main features, this Government would desire to have included in the first instructions to the enlarged Board the two fundamental questions whether the scheme for the improvement of the St. Lawrence Waterway which the Board presented in its report of June 24, 1921, is practicable and whether the estimates of costs made by it require revision. The time within which the Board should make its report should, as was suggested by the Canadian Government, be determined in advance and stated in the instructions. It is believed that the fundamental questions can be reported upon within a short time. If the suggestion that the instructions to the Joint Engineering Board be prepared by the two advisory committees in joint conference be acceptable to the Canadian Government the appointment of technical officers especially for this purpose as proposed by the Canadian Government would not be necessary. This Government further suggests that the two committees be empowered to meet from time to time in joint session in order to prepare supplemental instructions for the Board of Engineers as occasion may require, and to consider and develop the broader aspects of the whole matter so that each committee may be as helpful to the other as possible. This Government is hopeful that the foregoing proposals will be acceptable to the Government of Canada and I should be pleased if arrangements can be made by telegraph for publishing them simultaneously at Washington and Ottawa. Accept [etc.] CHARLES E. HUGHES |