INTERNATIONAL WATERS.
An Ottawa, Ont., dispatch of May 2 is to the following effect: “Telegraphic dispatches from Washington do not correctly represent Canada’s position in the dispute with the United States over the taking of water from Milk river for irrigation purposes. The Canadian government has not refused to negotiate in the matter, but what it says is that the condition of other waters on the international boundary should be considered and not simply Milk river. There are half a dozen points or more along the boundary line where parties in the United States are alleged to be improperly diverting waters, and, when the Ottawa government consented to appoint representatives to the International Waterways Commission, its idea was that all these questions should be taken up and dealt with on their merits. But the Washington authorities very perversely argued that the scope of the International Commission was limited to the waters of the St. Lawrence, and that an investigation of the dispensation of waters in western Canada could not be entered upon by them. Matters have not progressed since that reply to Canada’s representations was made by the United States. If an agent of the Reclamation Department, Washington, comes here to talk matters over, he will be politely received, but there is no present indication that the government will recede from its position, that all matters in dispute, and not simply one isolated case, should be taken up.”
An Ottawa, Ont., dispatch of May 2 is to the following effect: “Telegraphic dispatches from Washington do not correctly represent Canada’s position in the dispute with the United States over the taking of water from Milk river for irrigation purposes. The Canadian government has not refused to negotiate in the matter, but what it says is that the condition of other waters on the international boundary should be considered and not simply Milk river. There are half a dozen points or more along the boundary line where parties in the United States are alleged to be improperly diverting waters, and, when the Ottawa government consented to appoint representatives to the International Waterways Commission, its idea was that all these questions should be taken up and dealt with on their merits. But the Washington authorities very perversely argued that the scope of the International Commission was limited to the waters of the St. Lawrence, and that an investigation of the dispensation of waters in western Canada could not be entered upon by them. Matters have not progressed since that reply to Canada’s representations was made by the United States. If an agent of the Reclamation Department, Washington, comes here to talk matters over, he will be politely received, but there is no present indication that the government will recede from its position, that all matters in dispute, and not simply one isolated case, should be taken up.”
If you are a current subscriber,login here对accs this content.
If you would like to become a subscriber, please visit ushere.
