Report on the Livingstone Channel, April 8, 1913: Recommendations in Reply to Questions Submitted by the Governments of the United States and Canada, October 16, 1912. Treaty of May 5, 1910

Front Cover
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1913 - Detroit River (Mich. and Ont.) - 18 pages
0 Reviews
 

What people are saying - Write a review

We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.

Selected pages

Common terms and phrases

Popular passages

Page 3 - The high contracting parties further agree that any other questions or matters of difference arising between them involving the rights, obligations, or interests of either in relation to the other or to the inhabitants of the other, along the common frontier...
Page 3 - IX of the treaty of January 11, 1909, between the United States and Great Britain, the...
Page 11 - Chicago for a diversion of 10,000 cubic second-feet — "in a word, every drop of water taken out necessarily tends to nullify costly improvements made under direct authority of Congress throughout the Great Lakes and withdrawal of the amount now applied for would nullify such expenditures to the amount of many millions of dollars, as well as inflict an even greater loss on the navigation interests using such waters.
Page 11 - The foregoing effects would be produced at mean lake levels ; the lowering effects would be much greater at low-water periods — the precise time when any additional shortage would be most keenly felt. This reduction would create substantial injury in all of the American harbors of the Great Lakes and in the St. Marys, St. Clair and Detroit Rivers. It would produce equal injury in Canadian harbors on the Great Lakes, and a still greater injury on the lower St. Lawrence, the Canadian officials claiming...
Page 3 - Commission is authorized to examine into and report upon the facts and circumstances of the particular questions and matters referred, together with such conclusions and recommendations as may be appropriate...
Page 5 - ... below the channel, to maintain the lake levels. The proposed dam was intended also to cut a dangerous cross current in the river. During the investigation a number of residents of Amherstburg, on the Canadian side of the Detroit River, appeared before the Commission and presented a memorial protesting on behalf of the town of Amherstburg against the construction of the proposed dam or protective works which if built would be in the vicinity of that town. The memorial stated the belief of the...
Page 8 - ... conjunction with that of Zanesville, Columbus, and Cincinnati. The town of Cumberland, from which this great national work has received the appellation of the Cumberland road, lies on the north side of the Potomac, one hundred and forty miles E. by S. from Wheeling. The road between these two points was constructed by the government of the United States, at a cost of one million eight hundred thousand dollars. The bridges and other works of masonry, on the western portion of this road, are built...
Page 5 - ... into the harbor the flow of ice to destroy docks and other properties along the river front, and render navigation of vessels through the Amherstburg Channel difficult and dangerous. They also expressed their belief that the construction of the proposed dam would divert sewage from up-river points through the Canadian channel and to the intake of the town waterworks plant. After consideration of the evidence, the Commission filed its report and recommendations with the two Governments. This report...
Page 8 - Canada, in this particular case, is not called upon to bear any part of the cost of...

Bibliographic information