Report of the American members of the International Waterways Commission, with letters from the Secretary of State and the Secretary of War, including memoranda regarding the preservation of Niagara Falls.. Reports upon the existing water-power situation at Niagara Falls, so far as concerns the diversion of water on the American side.. The Niagara Falls Hydraulic Power and Manufacturing Co.. Industries using water for water purposes derived from Erie Canal at or near Lockport, N. Y., and at Medina, N. Y... Reports concerning the Canadian power companies and their associated trans- The comparative cost of Niagara power... The marvelous achievement of the Niagara Falls Power Co. H. G. Wells on the Niagara Falls Power Co The testimony of the Rev. J. N. Hallock. D. D The Niagara Falls Power Co. not a vandal.. Letter of New York State engineer and surveyor.. Prior and preferential right of Canadian Niagara Co.. The Ontario Co.'s position...... The preservation of Niagara Falls.. Letter of C. T. Williams to Scientific American.. Letter of Secretary of War Stimson... What the American Civic Association is and does... Decision of the Circuit Court, United States, within and for the district of Colo- rado, The Cascade Town Co. and Leander A. Bigger, complainants, v. The Telegram of the Merchants' Association of New York.. Letter of J. L. Hudson to Mr. Richard B. Watrous.. Erie & Ontario Sanitary Canal Co., proposed bill for Congress.. Resolutions of the Trades and Labor Council of Niagara Falls, N. Y. The Toronto Power Co. to the Secretary of War and indorsements.. Joint resolution (Public, House joint resolution 262), approved March 393 PRESERVATION OF NIAGARA FALLS. COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Mr. WILLIAM SULZER, of New York, chairman. The CHAIRMAN. We will take up for consideration this morning the bills relating to Niagara Falls, introduced by Mr. Simmons and by Mr. Smith of New York. We will hear from Representative Simmons. You may proceed, Mr. Simmons. Mr. FLOOD. Mr. Simmons, what is the number of your bill? The CHAIRMAN. Proceed, Mr. Simmons. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, the matter you have under consideration is of the deepest importance to me for the reason that I not only represent the district in which Niagara Falls is located, but I live in the city of that name. I lived there before the great electrical development was commenced, and I have therefore had the very best of opportunities to observe the conditions as they have arisen, and under the circumstances feel that I fully understand the existing situation. Prior to the advent of the electrical development of Niagara Falls the people who resided there were engaged almost entirely in entertaining tourists who visited that point. There was a population of about 10,000 people residing in the villages of Niagara Falls and Suspension Bridge. These people had their capital invested in hotels, stores, boarding houses, and the like, and the business of entertaining tourists was the principal occupation of these villages. These people had a greater interest in the Falls of the Niagara than any other people in the world; in fact they were the only people who had a financial interest in the Falls. If any movement had been started (or even contemplated) which in their opinion would have a tendency to deleteriously affect the scenic beauty of the Falls, and thereby lessen the tourist travel to that place, these people would have been the first to raise their voices in opposition, and, in my judgment, would have had the most equitable right to object, for the reason that they were the only people who had vested interests in the Falls. I am here to-day to represent those people and also 25,000 additional residents who have made Niagara Falls their place of residence since the beginning of the power development; and I wish to say to you that if it were possible to have every one of them appear before this committee they would frankly and unanimously testify that the diversion of the waters of the Niagara River for power purposes has not harmfully affected the scenic beauty of the Falls in the remotest extent, and that the tourist travel to the Falls has not been lessened thereby, but, on the contrary, has been increasing. 30714-12 1 This is no issue, in my judgment, that contemplates doing a thing which would seriously injure the Niagara Falls, or which would in any perceptible way change their scenic status. We merely desire legislation which will permit the use for industrial purposes of that portion of the water of the Niagara River that is not necessary for scenic beauty, and thus conserve the use of such water for the benefit of a great section of our country which is contiguous to the Falls. This is the issue-the only issue. The question along these lines has been taken up by the United States Government and by Great Britain. The two countries, desiring to determine what proportion of the water of the Niagara River could be diverted for commercial uses without impairment of the scenic side of the proposition, appointed able representatives. The representatives of the United States met the representatives of the Dominion of Canada and the question was fully and carefully considered to the end that the joint commission reported their findings, which were embodied in a treaty, which treaty has been adopted by the United States and Great Britain. Mr. FLOOD. When did this power development begin at Niagara Falls? Mr. SIMMONS. About 1895. Mr. MORRIS COHN, of Niagara Falls. That is hardly correct. The company that I represent had a canal put through in 1873. Mr. SIMMONS. I supposed he meant the development on a large scale. Mr. FLOOD. That is what I meant, Mr. Simmons. By the terms of this treaty we were permitted to divert 20,000 cubic feet of water per second and Great Britain (i. e. Canada) was permitted to divert 36,000 cubic feet per second. We thought that this division was unfair to us in that our proportion was only about one-half of the amount allotted to Canada, but nevertheless, we are perfectly satisfied with the terms of the treaty and all we are now seeking to do is to secure legislation which will permit us to take the small additional amount of water allowed us under the treaty. Mr. FLOOD. When was that treaty negotiated or concluded? Mr. SIMMONS. Of the 20,000 cubic feet allowed us under the treaty, permits have been issued by the Secretary of War to the amount of 15,600 cubic feet. The CHAIRMAN. The convention or treaty between the United States and Great Britain was concluded January 11, 1909. Mr. SIMMONS. There remains to us an additional amount of 4,400 cubic feet, which we desire to take to bring us to our maximum. Therefore, in considering this matter, I take it that the question involved is as to whether or not the 4.400 cubic feet of water could be diverted without serious injury to the Falls. Our country has willingly consented that Canada may divert from the Niagara River, out of the waters owned jointly by Great Britain and the United States, 36,000 cubic feet per second; and in view of this I could not conceive it to be the part of wisdom for us to restrict ourselves to our present diversion of only 15,600 cubic feet and deny |