Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-wq484 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T09:14:16.062Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Chicago Drainage Canal and St. Lawrence Development

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 May 2017

J. Q. Dealey Jr.
J. Q. Dealey Jr.*
Affiliation:
Western Reserve University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In 1900, by the opening of the Chicago drainage canal, there was provided a watercourse for the disposal of sewage and for navigation from Lake Michigan by way of the Chicago River to the Illinois and Mississippi Rivers. Entailing as it did the reversal of the flow of the Chicago River, this, from the engineering standpoint, has been hailed as a great achievement. The large abstraction of water from Lake Michigan through the canal, however, had its effect in a lowering of levels in the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River with consequent injury to navigation. This brought about constant opposition to the canal from the Federal Government and from Canada. Thus the Sanitary District of Chicago has been involved in a host of legal difficulties and put to much expense in adjusting its plant to the demands of the United States Government. The diversion in the meantime has been a constant source of ill-feeling towards the United States on the part of Canada and at present, although under federal control, offers an obstacle to the further development of Great Lakes and St. Lawrence waterways.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 23 , Issue 2 , April 1929 , pp. 307 - 328
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1929

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Laws of the State of Illinois, 36th Assembly, 1889, p. 125.

2 Col. Poe’s report is in Appendix A (p. 49 ff.) to the Report on the Effects of the Chicago Drainage Canal on the Levels of the Great Lakes, by J. L. P. O’Hanly. Ottawa, 1896. For Col. Poe’s conclusions, see p. 52.

3 The various permits issued by the United States War Department to the District are printed in Appendix D, p. 223 ff., to Papers Relating to the application of the Sanitary District of Chicago. Issued by the Dept. of Marine and Fisheries, Canada. Ottawa, 1912.

4 30 U. S. Stat. at Large, 1151 (Sec. 9, 10).

5 Permit of May 8, 1899. Papers relating to the application of the Sanitary District, pp. 223–224.

6 Permits of April 9, 1901, July 23, 1901, Dec. 5, 1901, and Jan. 17, 1903. Ibid., pp. 225–229.

7 Ibid., Appendix K, pp. 261–262.

8 Compiled Reports of the International Waterways Commission, 1905–1913. Sessional Papers, Canada, No. 19a, 1913, 2 vols., Ottawa. Vol. I, pp. 521–523.

9 Memorandum by Gen. W. H. Bixby, Chief of Engineers, U. S. A. Appendix Ito Papers relating to the application of the Sanitary District, p. 246.

10 Diversion of Water from the Great Lakes and Niagara River. Reports by Col. J. G. Warren, Corps of Engineers, and Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors. Washington, Government Printing Office, 1921, p. 108.

11 Sanitary District of Chicago v. United States, 266 U. S. 405 (1925).

12 Ibid., pp. 425–426.

13 Copy of permit enclosed in note of Mar. 21, 1925, Mr. Kellogg to Sir Esme Howard, U. S. Dept. of State press release, Feb. 24, 1926, pp. 9–11.

14 Kellogg Mr. to Sir Esme Howard, Nov. 24, 1925, Ibid., pp. 19–20.

15 Wisconsin et al. v. Illinois at al., 49 Sup. Ct. 163, Jan. 14, 1929. The original bill in this suit was filed by Wisconsin in 1922. Others of the Great Lakes States later joined as complainants, while many of the Mississippi River States, influenced by the prospects of a Great Lakes-Gulf of Mexico waterway, intervened for the defense. The final lineup showed the States of Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York as complainants, with Illinois and the Sanitary District of Chicago, Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, Louisiana, Mississippi and Arkansas as the defendants.

16 30 U. S. Stat. at Large, 1151 (Sec. 10).

17 United States v. Chandler-Dunbar Co., 229 U. S. 53, 65.

18 J L. P. O’Hanly, Report on the Effect of the Chicago Drainage Canal on the Levels of the Great Lakes, Ottawa, 1896, p. 45.

19 Reports of the War Department, Chief of Engineers, 1900, Part 8, p. 5401; 1904, Part 4, p. 4120.

20 Compiled Reports of the International Waterways Commission, 1905–1913. Canada, Sessional Papers, No. 19a, 1913, 2 vols., Ottawa. Vol. I, p. 24.

21 Compiled Reports of the International Waterways Commission, 1905–1913. Canada, Sessional Papers, No. 19a, 1913, 2 vols., Ottawa. Vol. I, pp. 339–340.

22 Ibid., Vol. I, p. 338.

23 Ibid., Vol. I, p. 400.

24 Ibid., Vol. I, p. 424.

25 Ibid., Vol. II, p. 1182.

26 Compiled Reports of the International Waterways Commission, 1905–1913. Canada, Sessional Papers, No. 19a, 1913, 2 vols., Ottawa. Vol. I, pp. 521–523.

27 Ibid., Vol. I, p. 529.

28 8 U. S. Stat. at Large, 572.

29 Report of Nov. 15, 1906. Compiled Reports, Vol. I, p. 362.

30 “ Ibid., Vol. I, p. 365.

31 Ibid., Vol. I, p. 368.

32 36 U. S. Stat. at Large, 2448; Supplement to this Journal, Vol. 4, p. 239.

33 Memorandum prepared for the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate by Mr. Chandler Anderson. Printed in Report of Hearings on the subject of the improvement of the Illinois and Mississippi Rivers and the diversion of water from Lake Michigan into the Illinois River. Com. of House of Rep. on Rivers and Harbors, 68th Cong., 1st Sess., pp. 1294–1298.

34 Quoted in Report of the Engineering Board of Review of the Sanitary District of Chicago, 1925, Part II, p. 71.

35 Papers relating to the application of the Sanitary District of Chicago, p. 37.

36 Ibid., p. 82, citing L. Oppenheim, International Law, ed. 1905–1906, Bk. I, p. 175.

37 Ibid., pp. 24, 50, 52–54.

38 Papers relating to the application of the Sanitary District of Chicago, p. 27, quoting from report, 1911, by Gen. Bixby, Chief of Engineers, U. S. A.

39 Ibid., pp. 18–20, 30, 63–66.

40 Ibid., pp. 170–172.

41 Ibid., pp. 155–156.

42 Ibid., pp. 142–143, 166–167.

43 Ibid., pp. 184–185.

44 Ibid., pp. 140, 144–146.

45 For text of Sec. Stimson’s decision, see Sessional Paper No. 180, Canada, Vol. LX (1924), Part 7, 113 A summary of his objections is given on pp. 119–120.

46 The Gov. Gen. of Canada to Amb. Bryce, Nov. 23, 1912, transmitting report of the committee of the Privy Council, approved Nov. 19, 1912. Canada, Sessional Paper No. 180, Vol. LX (1924), Part 7, p. 110.

47 Huntington Wilson (Acting Sec. of State) to Mr. Bryce, Dec. 24, 1912. Ibid., pp. 111–112.

48 Report of Privy Council, approved Feb. 21, 1913, and transmitted to British Ambassador at Washington under date of Feb. 25, 1913. Ibid., pp. 120–124.

49 Mr.Bryce, to Mr.Bryan, , Mar. 17, 1913. Ibid., pp. 125–126 Google Scholar.

50 Note of Apr. 22, 1921. Ibid., pp. 128–129.

51 H. R. 5475. Printed on pages 1–5 of Hearings on the subject of the improvement of the Illinois and Mississippi Rivers and the diversion of water from Lake Michigan into the Illinois River. Com. on Rivers and Harbors, House of Rep., 68th Cong., 1st Sess. The other bills referred to contained quite similar provisions. They are printed in the same reports at pp. 222, 225, 226.

52 British chargé to Sec. of State, Feb. 13, 1924. Canada, Sessional Paper No. 180, Vol. LX (1924), Part 7, pp. 141–143.

53 The works on the St. Lawrence, “at or above” Rapide Plat, as provided for in these bills, would be for the purpose of regulating the level of Lake Ontario, and would have influence on relatively but a short distance along the St. Lawrence River.

54 SirEsme, Howard to Mr.Hughes, , Mar. 21, 1924. (From unpublished manuscript in Dept. of State.)Google Scholar

55 SirEsme, Howard to Mr.Hughes, , Feb. 24, 1925. U. S. Dept. of State press release, Feb. 24, 1926, pp. 5–6 Google Scholar.

56 Mr.Chilton, , British, chargé, to Mr.Kellogg, , Sept. 15, 1925. Ibid., pp. 16–17 Google Scholar.

57 Mr.Kellogg, to SirEsme, Howard, Nov. 24, 1925. Ibid., pp. 19–20 Google Scholar.

58 Sir Esme Howard to Mr. Kellogg, Feb. 5, 1926. United States Daily, April 20, 1928, p. 2. To this the Ambassador added the statement that the “decision of the United States Supreme Court of January 5, 1925 (Sanitary District of Chicago v. United States, 266 U. S. 405) recognizes that in the present instance, the Treaty of January 11, 1909, expressly provides against uses ’affecting the natural level or flow of boundary waters’ without the authority of the United States or the Dominion of Canada within their respective jurisdictions, and the approval of the International Joint Commission agreed upon therein.” If the Supreme Court had quoted fully the pertinent clause of the treaty, this would have read “against uses … of boundary waters on either side of the line, affecting. …” As thus qualified, this treaty clause has no bearing on Lake Michigan. In any case, the quoted extract from the court’s opinion had been only thrown in incidentally to the main argument.

59 The International Joint Commission, Report on the Livingstone Channel, Apr. 8, 1913. Washington, 1913.

60 International Joint Commission, Application of the Government of the United States for approval of certain contemplated improvements in the St. Clair River at Port Huron, Mich., p. 31 (par. 8).

61 Report of the International Joint Commission concerning the improvement of the St. Lawrence River between Montreal and Lake Ontario for navigation and power, dated Dec. 19, 1921. Sen. Doc. No. 114, 67th Cong., 2nd Sess.

62 Mr.Hughes, to SirAuckland, Geddes, May 17, 1922; Report of the Committee of the Privy Council of Canada, approved May 29, 1922. Canada, Sessional Paper No. 89a, 1922, PP. 4–6 Google Scholar.

63 Mr.Hughes, to SirEsme, Howard, April 28, 1924 Google Scholar; SirEsme, Howard to Mr.Hughes, , May 8, 1924. Dept. of State press release, April 21, 1925, pp. 1a, 1b, 1c.Google Scholar

64 St. Lawrence Waterway, Report of the Joint Board of Engineers appointed by the Governments of the United States and Canada. Washington, 1927, p. 40.

65 St. Lawrence Waterway Project, Message from the President of the United States transmitting a report of the Chairman of the United States St. Lawrence Commission upon the development of shipway from the Great Lakes to the sea. Report dated Dec. 27, 1926. Sen. Doc. No. 183, 69th Cong., 2nd Sess. The conclusions arrived at by the Commission are given on p. 6 of this report.

66 Mr.Kellogg, to Vincent, Massey (Min. of Canada), April 13, 1927. New York Times, July 16, 1927, p. 20.Google Scholar

67 MacKenzie King, W. L., Prime Min. of Canada, to the Sec. of State of the U. S., July 12, 1927. New York Times, July 16, 1927, p. 20.Google Scholar

68 Min. of Canada to Sec. of State of U. S., January 31, 1928. United States Daily, April 17, 1928, p. 2.

69 Mr.Kellogg, to Min. of Canada, Mar. 2, 1928. United States Daily, April 18, 1928, p. 2.Google Scholar

70 Mr.Chilton, H. G. to Mr.Kellogg, , Sept. 15, 1925. U. S. Dept. of State press release, Feb. 24, 1926, pp. 16–17.Google Scholar

71 Mr.Hughes, to SirEsme, Howard, June 28, 1924. Ibid., pp. 4–5.Google Scholar

72 Mr.Hughes, to Mr. Brooks (chargé ad int. at the British Embassy), July 2, 1924. U. S. Dept. of State press release, April 21, 1925, pp. 6–7.Google Scholar

73 SirEsme, Howard to Grew, J. C. (Acting Sec. of State), Aug. 18, 1924;Google Scholar Mr.Hughes, to SirEsme, Howard, Sept. 10, 1924;Google Scholar SirEsme, Howard to Mr.Hughes, , Oct. 20. 1924;Google Scholar Mr.Hughes, to SirEsme, Howard, Nov. 10, 1924. Ibid., pp. 7–11.Google Scholar

74 Mr.Hughes, to SirEsme, Howard, Dec. 29, 1924; SirEsme, Howard to Mr.Hughes, , Feb. 4, 1925; Mr.Kellogg, to SirEsme, Howard, Mar. 17, 1925. Ibid., pp. 12–18.Google Scholar

75 Mr.Chilton, H., British chargé, to Mr.Kellogg, , undated note received May 1, 1926. United States Daily, April 21, 1928, p. 2.Google Scholar

76 Mr.Kellogg, to SirEsme, Howard, July 26, 1926. United States Daily, April 21, 1928.Google Scholar

77 St. Lawrence Waterway, Report of the Joint Board of Engineers, pp. 10, 11, 42–44.

78 Mr.Kellogg, to SirHenry, Chilton, Dec. 7, 1926. United States Daily, April 21, 1928, p. 2.Google Scholar

79 Mr.Laurent, Beaudry to Mr.Kellogg, , Sept. 1, 1927. United States Daily, April 23, 1928, p. 2.Google Scholar

80 Mr.Kellogg, to Mr.Massey, , Min. of Canada, Oct. 17, 1927. United States Daily, April 23, 1928, p. 2.Google Scholar

81 Memorandum attached to note of Elihu Root, Sec. of State, to James Bryce, Amb. of Great Britain, Jan. 13, 1908 (unpublished). The treaty provisions referred to here is Article II of the Webster-Ashburton Treaty of 1842, which provided that the water communications and usual portages between Lake Superior and the Lake of the Woods (to which Birch Lake and the other waters here in question are tributary) should be free and open to the citizens and subjects of both countries (8 U. S. Stat. at Large, 572).

82 34 U. S. Stat. at Large, 2953.

83 Mr.Olney, to the Sec. of War, Jan. 13, 1897. Sen. Doc. No. 229, 55th Cong., 2nd Sess., pp. 24–26.Google Scholar

84 International Joint Commission, Final Report on the Lake of the Woods Reference, dated June 12, 1917. Washington, 1917, pp. 70–71.

85 Treaty of Feb. 24, 1925. 44 U. S. Stat. at Large, 2108; Supplement to this Journal, Vol. 19, p. 128.

86 Mr.Massey, to Mr.Kellogg, , Jan. 31, 1928. United States Daily, April 17, 1928, p. 2.Google Scholar

87 Mr.Kellogg, to Mr.Massey, , Mar. 2, 1928. United States Daily, April 18, 1928, p. 2.Google Scholar