side, plus the present consumption on the Ontario end; and that is very little.

Mr. BROWN. And the additional diversion of 4,400 feet would be hardly appreciable?

Gen. BIXBY. Hardly be noticed.

Mr. BROWN. Then the conclusion as to the American Falls is that the amount actually diverted, even if the 4,400 feet more were actually diverted-the effect on the scenic appearance of the American Falls is inappreciable-speaking only of the American Falls?

Gen. BIXBY. I think you are right; but I have not absorbed fully the contents of this document.

Mr. BROWN. Neither have I. Then, as to the Canadian side-before I come to the scenic beauty again-you have spoken about the effects on the navigation of Lake Erie. Is it not your conclusion that, so far as the effect on that part of the Niagara River considered as a boundary line is concerned, that the effect of the diversions made, even if extended to the full amount allowed in the treaty, would be negligible?

Gen. BIXBY. I do not think I understand your question. It would not affect-it can not affect the boundary line.

Mr. BROWN. That is my point. On page 13 of Senate Document 105-I understand your conclusion to be that, so far as considering the boundary-line question, it has no effect on the boundary line?

Gen. BIXBY. Yes, sir; that is true; no effect on the boundary line. Mr. BROWN. Now, then, General, having spoken of the effect on the navigation of Lake Erie, and on the river as an international boundary line, and that even as to scenic beauty there is no effect on the American Falls, may I ask you one or two questions as to the Canadian Falls? [Reading from paper:] "There are on the Canadian side certain falls known as the Horseshoe Falls." The effect that you have found is something like 4 inches on this side of the Horseshoe and something like 9 on the other side?

A MEMBER. Did you say 3 or 4 and 8 or 9?

Mr. BROWN. Four and nine.

Mr. KENDALL. Of course, that is not on the assumption that 56,000 feet will be diverted, but only that it may be.

Mr. BROWN. This is only preliminary. The effect of this entire diversion in the river shows a difference of 4 inches on the American side of the Horseshoe Falls and 9 inches on the Canadian side. Now, General, is it not true, and so stated in your report as a conclusionI want to compare that variation of the levels in the river-is it not true, and so reported in your report, that an easterly breeze across Lake Erie-not a hurricane, but a breeze--would make a difference in the level of the overflow of Lake Erie of several feet?

Gen. BIXBY. It will do so.

Mr. BROWN. And would not an ordinary westerly breeze have the effect of temporarily affecting the depth of the water over the Canadian Falls a matter of a foot, or maybe a foot or two?!

Gen. BIXBY. It would increase it.

Mr. BROWN, And is it not true that the variations in the levels of Lake Erie may be due to the difference between a strong westerly breeze and an easterly breeze--the variation of 14 feet?

Gen. BIXBY. It has been something like that.

Mr. BROWN. That is, an easterly breeze has been known to raise the level of Lake Erie?

Gen. BIXBY. The easterly breeze raises one end and the westerly raises the other.

Mr. BROWN. Well, it piles it up--may make 14 feet difference? A MEMBER. Fourteen feet where?

Mr. BROWN. An easterly breeze might pile up the waters 8 feet? Gen. BIXBY. Somewhere around that.

Mr. BROWN. And at the same time would affect the depth to some extent all over the lake, and at the same time it affects the depth over the Falls?

Mr. KENDALL. These propositions seem so self-evident.

Mr. BROWN. I was only bringing them out to emphasize the effect of natural causes-for comparison.

Mr. COOPER. Now, I ask you to refer to page 15; it is later and, under the ordinary rules of construction in law, ought to represent your later impressions. Reading from document:] "The Falls are held in trust, etc., from the Canadian side." Is that your conclusion?

Gen. BIXBY. That was the conclusion of the writer of this report. Mr. COOPER. Who wrote that?

Gen. BIXBY. Maj. Keller.

Mr. KENDALL. Is he an expert in your department?

Gen. BIXBY. Yes, sir.

Mr. COOPER. I would like to read this on page 15 [reading]: "An earnest consideration of the effects, five to five-tenths inches."

Mr. KENDALL. Canada is likely to divert all under this treaty without our control.

Mr. COOPER. I observe this photograph was taken at a time when tourists are most generally at the Falls--midsummer, July 26. I observe for a long distance there is no water going over there, apparently; and if it is, it is a very straggly, scraggly stream. If that was lower, how much more scraggly would that look?

Gen. BIXBY. If you take away all the water, the Falls will be gone. The question is simple; but where are you going to draw the line as to amount to be taken?

Mr. GARNER. General, I did not know until Mr. Cooper read it into the record that your department was considering the question from the scenic viewpoint. There are four propositions being considered. The first question is, Will Congress take any action to govern the taking of this water or let the treaty stand as the law? The second proposition is, if we do, Shall we permit on the American side more diverting of water than is contemplated under the Burton Act? The third is whether we shall permit power to be transmitted from the Canadian side in excess of what is allowed-160,000 horsepower.

Gen. BIXBY. Well, I should like to take up the questions rather in the inverse order, because I can answer them more quickly in that way. So far as the importation of power is concerned, the Engineer Department has no interest whatever, so far as I am able to discover. I have always considered that it was a question of protection or tariff or both. It has no value to us from an engineering point of view. It is a question that would possibly come up under conservation. If we want to conserve power to the United States, there should not be any objection whatever to importation of electricity; but the United States, through the War Department and Chief of Engineers, has watched that question simply because it was laid

down in the Burton Act, and as somebody had to do it, the Secretary of War did it. Now, we have tried to follow out the conditions of the Burton Act, but it is exceedingly difficult for us to find out how much electricity is generated on the Canadian side, and it is a question of some difficulty to say how much they would send over the Niagara River if there were more cables; and such measurement is a piece of difficult work which the Engineer Department is not specially interested in, but it is willing to do as well as it can at any time if Congress says so. We are willing to do it if Congress so

wishes.

As far as the importation of power is concerned, the War Department has no interest one way or the other as to where the electricity goes nor how much of that power is moved in one direction or another, but there is a point about the power that we think somebody ought to look after, and that is, in the interests of conservation, the United States ought to see that so much of the surplus water as is allowed to be diverted should be made to develop all the power that it can give and, therefore, if anybody is going to take water from the Falls to develop power, they ought to use the entire drop of the Falls down to Lake Ontario, because every foot of drop means that much extra power, for if 1 foot gives 1 horsepower. 2 feet will give 2 horsepower, and 10 feet will give 10 horsepower, and so on; and so I think the United States ought to select the individuals who can get the most work out of it. We ought to get some legislation on it somewhere.

Mr. KENDALL. I think the legislation in the Burton Act was for the purpose of controlling, as far as it could be done by this Government, the diversion on the Canadian side. If that limitation is advanced or removed, it would to some extent appreciably diminish the scenic appearance of the Falls?

Gen. BIXBY. Well, personally I do not know anything about this except my own personal views: but I do not expect to see but a very few years elapse before Canada will use every bit of water that it can take and the United States will use every bit of water that it can take; and if the Canadians have any trouble in exporting the power from Canada, I do not think it will be more than a few years before they will be using it up at home. I think all this power will be used for electricity, and the place of its use is not the concern of the War Department, nor does it concern navigation.

Mr. GARNER. In other words, General, if we pass a law prohibiting that power from being utilized by American citizens. Canada will allow it to be used on the Canadian side?

Gen. BIXBY. Yes, sir.

Mr. SHARP. Of course, that is on the assumption that the Canadian Government will not interfere?

Gen. BIXBY. Well, if they can not find capital at home they will use American capital.

Mr. SHARP. I mean for the preservation of the Falls?

Gen. BIXBY. Oh, yes.

A MEMBER. You mentioned the fact that this water should be used with greater or more potency to develop power?

Gen. BIXBY. There are plants now on the American side that do not derive as much power as they can from the water used by them. The Niagara Falls Hydraulic & Manufacturing Co. drops its water 205 feet and gets every foot of work out of it. Now, the Canadian

Niagara Co. uses a drop of but 140 feet, the Electrical Development Co. uses a drop of but 135 feet, etc., the Hydraulic Co. and the Ontario Co. get about 200 feet drop out of that water, and some others only get 50.

Mr. GARNER. General, in that connection, your contention is that, in the interests of conservation, the companies taking the power on both sides should be required to get the greatest power out of the water being utilized?

Gen. BIXBY. Exactly.

Mr. GARNER. Now, I can see no way by which the American Congress can control the Canadian side, unless they control the importation of power into the United States. We can not control it unless we say to the Canadian power companies, "You must comply with certain regulations

A MEMBER. In utilization of the potency of the water.

Gen. BIXBY. Yes, sir. Well, I presume that some restrictive legislation as that might be found that would have that effect for a few years, but it would not be for long, because even Canada is not going to throw away water power and dollars and cents for many years to come. I know if I had a dollar and one man could get 10 per cent interest out of it and another man 20 and another 40 I would hunt up the man who would give me 40 per cent. Now, we can get from one and one-half to four times as much power out of this water by using the same arrangements as the Niagara Falls Hydraulic Co. and the Ontario Co. are using, and we can get from one and one-half to four times as much business and profit out of it as anybody else using that power like the other companies with from 50 to 135 feet head.

The CHAIRMAN. Gen. Bixby, have you any objection to Richard B. Watrous, secretary of the American Civic Association, asking you a few questions?

Gen. BIXBY. Not at all.

Mr. RICHARD B. WATROUS. The reason I have asked permission to ask a question now is because the General has touched upon the question of using more than the amount of water that is used, and in this report, which is a very admirable report, there is one very pointed statement to the effect that one of the American companies is wasting one-third of the head of the water it is permitted to use. As I understand it it is permitted to use 8,600 cubic feet, and a third of that would be 2,866 cubic feet. That transferred into power and, using the figures of Congressman Simmons, multiplied by 20, would be 57.320 horsepower. Using the figures which we have been using it would mean 34,392 horsepower. We have listened to the statement to the effect that Buffalo is crying for more water power. Now, the question I desired to ask of Gen. Bixby is whether, when this report was made, this information was obtained from that particular company?

Gen. BIXBY. I understand the company's plant is being changed. Mr. WATROUS. Are there any late figures on it, General?

Gen. BIXBY. There may be, but I am not posted on the late figures. All I know is that the changes are being made, and my remarks are only aimed at the pure, theory of conservation, which it is our bounden duty to get at.

Mr. WATROUS. I understand that, but in this report there is a more definite statement. where the waste of a third is quoted, and that

is recommended to be changed. It seems to me that there is one of the very strongest arguments, because if they would use what they are permitted to use they would supply a great additional demand. Mr. GARNER. In that connection, may I ask whether or not under the Burton law you had any power to control the power plants? Gen. BIXBY. The award was laid down for us and we were to watch its execution.

Mr. GARNER. Then you had no power under the Burton Act to control their methods?

Gen. BIXBY. No, sir.

Mr. GARNER. If you had that power you could have forced them to utilize the greatest amount of power?

Gen. BIXBY. Yes, sir; practically.

Mr. BROWN. May I ask the general a question? General, where a company, like the Canadian Niagara Co., takes its water from below the crest of the Falls-we have all seen, I think, that when a company takes it from above the crest the diversion tends to be unfavorable to navigation?

Gen. BIXBY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BROWN. Now, then, the Canadian Niagara Co. takes its water from below the crest?

Gen. BIXBY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BROWN. Therefore, we may find that the use of the lower head preserves navigation. Is that true? I mean, the company that takes water from below the crest would be a company that would not tend to injure navigation?

Gen. BIXBY. The lower down the water is taken the less the injury would be to the navigation interests.

Mr. BROWN. Then, is it not true that the lower the head at which the water is used the less the tendency is to injure navigation?

Gen. BIXBY. That is true in the case you mention.

Mr. DIFENDERFER. Now, General, these companies who are privileged to use this water, if they had consumed all that was in their power to consume, would it not have cheapened electricity? If these companies who are privileged to use this power had used the maximum capacity would it not have given the people a cheaper power? In other words, haven't the laws of supply and demand been defied in this case and the law of monopoly followed?

Gen. BIXBY. Probably if they had used the water at the greater head they would have made their electricity a little cheaper, but that is something I would not ordinarily inquire into.

Mr. SHARP. All these power developments precede the Burton Act?

Gen. BIXBY. They all precede the Burton Act, and the permits were issued with a fair regard to the men who were developing the business.

Mr. LEGARE. General, have you before you the amount of cubie feet that the Canadians are using?

Gen. BIXBY. In June, 1911, the Canadians were using about 11,000 cubic feet.

Mr. SHARP. Twenty-four thousand eight hundred.

Gen. BIXBY. Col. Riché, in charge of the lake survey, made this report.

Mr. COOPER. I observe on page 16 of that report, dated November 30, 1908, reported to the Secretary of War January 30, 1909, a little