Gen. GREENE. You will have to fight that out with the Legislature of New York.

Mr. DIFFENDERFER. My contention is that the public-service commission of New York is not doing its duty to the city of Buffalo.

Gen. GREENE. I have never heard any complaint from the people of New York. The people that you are desiring to protect are perfectly satisfied.

Mr. KENDALL. The rates in Buffalo are perfectly uniform with the` rates in New York, and if one man has a grievance his neighbors ought to have it also.

Gen. GREENE. There would be a hundred.

Mr. KENDALL. I think it is not unreasonable at all that a hundred should be required to join.

Gen. GREENE. In half a million people?

Mr. DIFENDERFER. Yes; but if that single complaint is brought, that complaint is public, and I contend that in the city of Buffalo the party making that complaint has been penalized by the company. Gen. GREENE. Mr. Difenderfer, if you are dissatisfied with the price of a railroad ticket from here to Philadelphia, do you claim that you have the right to demand of the Interstate Commerce Commission that that price shall be reduced?

Mr. DIFENDERFER. If the railroad company is breaking the law, I have that right.

Gen. GREENE. But we are not breaking the law. We are complying with the law.

A MEMBER. The difference is this: Any single citizen can complain about a discrimination, but he can not get the general schedule rates changed under the law of the city.

The CHAIRMAN. General, in order to simplify the matter as much as possible, let me ask you a few questions.

We have a treaty with Great Britain, and under article 5 of that treaty Canada has the right to divert 36,000 cubic feet of water per second and the United States has the right to divert 20,000 cubic feet of water per second for power purposes. If there is no legislation in this matter the treaty is self-acting, is it not?

Gen. GREENE. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And the United States could then take the 20,000 feet for power purposes and Canada could take 36,000 feet per second for power purposes?

Gen. GREENE. Yes. As to the transmission of power from Canada, there is no reason why you should legislate. Prior to the 29th day of June, 1906, it was perfectly lawful to do what we were then doingbringing power from Canada to the United States; on the 30th day of June, 1906, it was a crime to bring power into the United States from Canada unless we had the written permit of the Secretary of War. Mr. KENDALL. Under the Burton Act.

Gen. GREENE. Under the Burton Act what was lawful on the 29th of June was a crime punishable by fine and imprisonment on the 30th day of June, and that was the object of this legislation. Therefore I answer your question as to the transmission of power from Canada-there is no reason for you to legislate at all.

The CHAIRMAN. The Burton law expires on the 1st of March of this year?

Gen. GREENE. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. The treaty is the supreme law of the land. There being no legislation, the people of the United States can take the 20,000 cubic feet per second and Canada can take 36,000 cubic feet per second, and the power can come in from Canada.

Gen. GREENE. As to the transmission, you should not legislate. As to the diversion of water, I think you will have to legislate as to who shall have this 4,400 feet; to whom it shall go and how. I supposed when I read that treaty that it was a matter the commission should decide. I understand now that the commission can not do anything with it. The War Department can not do anything with it. Apparently it is necessary to legislate as to who shall get this 4,400 feet.

Mr. SHARP. General, what proportion is that to the whole water that goes over the Falls-all the water?

Gen. GREENE. The average flow, as certified by the United States engineers, is 211,000 feet per second. The permissible diversion is about 56,000.

Mr. SHARP. I imagined that the flow was a great deal more than that.

Gen. GREENE. How many tons do you think that will be an hour? Two and a half million tons an hour.

Mr. SHARP. It seems to me that there is something in the claim that to diminish the flow would destroy to a certain extent the scenic beauty. It is large enough to make us go with caution.

Mr. KENDALL. It is a little more than one-fourth.

Gen. GREENE. That question was asked me in the last hearing, six years ago: What proportion of the water could be diverted without interfering perceptibly with the flow of the Falls? I answered: "About 40 per cent." I adhere to that opinion, and I have watched the Falls very carefully ever since. That would be 80,000 cubic feet instead of 56,000 feet. There are a great many other people who are very familiar with the Falls who have the same opinion that I havethat the effect would not be noticeable until you get to 40 per cent. Under Mr. Burton's law the 160,000 horsepower that he allows to come in would be somewhere between 14 and 15 per cent.

Mr. SHARP. About half.

Gen. GREENE. A little over half.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, General, to proceed, with whom do you think the power should be lodged regarding this additional 4,400 cubic feet of water?

Gen. GREENE. I think with the War Department, through the cooperation of the State of New York.

Mr. DIFENDERFER. Now, to whom shall it be given?

Gen. GREENE. I should say to that company which will satisfy the War Department that it will give the most power.

Mr. DIFENDERFER. The Alexander bill provided that it would give it to two companies. I want to know whether, in your judgment, that would be just?

Gen. GREENE. The Alexander bill followed Burton's bill in naming certain companies, but that bill is dead.

Mr. DIFENDERFER. I understand; but would it be fair to give that to both companies?

Mr. KENDALL. That is an ethical question; on that one man's judgment would be just as good as another's.

The CHAIRMAN. General, I understand you to say that the right to grant the permit for the additional power should be lodged with the Secretary of War, and the right to say who shall have it and fix the charges should be lodged with the public-service commission of New York.

Gen. GREENE. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. That is all the legislation required, in your judgment?

Gen. GREENE. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Then the people of the United States could buy power either from the American companies or from the Canadian companies?

Gen. GREENE. Yes, sir.

Mr. LEGARE. General, do you know how many visitors are at the Falls in a year?

Gen. GREENE. Our record book shows about 5,000. I do not know precisely about the other companies, but I think they are fully as large; and they go through the works. That, however, is not the total number of people who go to the Falls.

Mr. LEGARE. But how many people have the pleasure of seeing the Falls?

Gen. GREENE. I was just asking if the president of the Gorge Railroad was here; but I think about 150,000.

A VOICE. A million and a half.

Gen. GREENE. Well, I should not like to say.

Mr. LEGARE. About a million and a half?

Gen. GREENE. Yes.

Mr. LEGARE. About how many people are benefited by the use of this power? How many people are supplied with light?

Gen. GREENE. About 2,500,000, and in Ontario about 1,000,000. Mr. LEGARE. About 3,500,000?

Gen. GREENE. Yes, sir.

Mr. SHARP. I don't know whether it was debated in the Senate, but some years ago a prominent member of that body took up seriously the question of putting a dam above the Falls; and on account of the deepening of the canal there is a great agitation now to make the Chicago Canal navigable. What effect might come on account of this legislation? If the whole amount was diverted and in succeeding years there should be a decline in lake levels and this agitation should increase for diverting a larger amount, what would be the effect upon the flow from the Falls?

Gen. GREENE. The dam you speak of is now being considered by the International Waterways Commission, under the convention of 1902. They say they expect to arrive at their conclusion in about a year or less, and pending that report I do not feel qualified to say anything. You understand that the wind varies the lake levels to the extent of 14 feet.

Mr. SHARP. There is only about 14 feet difference clear around to Lake Erie.

Gen. GREENE. This 14 feet is at the Buffalo end, due to the east wind backing it up and the west wind blowing it down.

Mr. SHARP. Acts a good deal like the wind blowing over the line kilns at Detroit.

Gen. GREENE. That is all. However, before closing I put on the desk these photographs. The earliest one is 1804. I would like to call the attention of the members of the committee to this. These are photographs of 1890 to 1900. I think, Mr. Cooper, in looking at the photographs of 1911, thought that that lack of water on Terrapin Point was due to the power companies.

Mr. COOPER. General, sometimes I don't know what to think about those photographs.

STATEMENT BY FRANCIS V. GREENE ON BEHALF OF NIAGARA, LOCKPORT & ONTARIO POWER CO., A NEW YORK CORPORATION, AND ONTARIO POWER Co. OF NIAGARA FALLS, A CANADIAN CORPORATION.

Mr. Chairman, the treaty between the United States and Great Britain in regard to the boundary waters of the United States and Canada was negotiated by Mr. Root, then Secretary of State, on behalf of the United States, and by Mr. Bryce, British ambassador, on the part of Great Britain; it was signed by them on January 11, 1909; the Senate of the United States gave its consent. under certain conditions, to its ratification by resolution dated March 3, 1909. The conditions imposed by the Senate delayed the ratification by Great Britain for a year, but it was ratified by Great Britain on March 31, 1910; by the President on the following day, April 1, 1910; the ratifications were exchanged at Washington on May 5, 1910, and the treaty was proclaimed by the President on May 10, 1910.

The fifth article of said treaty relates to the diversion of the waters of the Niagara River above the Falls, and is in the following language:

"The High Contracting Parties agree that it is expedient to limit the diversion of waters from the Niagara River so that the level of Lake Erie and the flow of the stream shall not be appreciably affected. It is the desire of both Parties to accomplish this object with the least possible injury to investments which have already been made in the construction of power plants on the United States side of the river under grants of authority from the State of New York, and on the Canadian side of the river under licenses authorized by the Dominion of Canada and the Province of Ontario.

"So long as this treaty shall remain in force, no diversion of the waters of the Niagara River above the Falls from the natural course and stream thereof shall be permitted except for the purposes and to the extent hereinafter provided.

"The United States may authorize and permit the diversion within the State of New York of the waters of said river above the Falls of Niagara, for power purposes, not exceeding in the aggregate a daily diversion at the rate of twenty thousand cubic feet of water per second.

"The United Kingdom, by the Dominion of Canada, or the Province of Ontario, may authorize and permit the diversion within the Province of Ontario of the waters of said river above the Falls of Niagara, for power purposes, not exceeding in the aggregate a daily diversion at the rate of thirty-six thousand cubic feet of water per second.

"The prohibitions of this article shall not apply to the diversion of water for sanitary or domestic purposes or for the service of canals for the purposes of navigation."

Two bills are now pending in the House of Representatives, to wit, H. R. 6746, introduced by Mr. Smith, of Buffalo, and H. R. 7694, introduced by Mr. Simmons, of Niagara Falls, the title of both bills being identical, namely, "To give effect to the fifth article of the treaty between the United States and Great Britain signed January 11, 1909." I understood it is the purpose of your committee to prepare legislation which shall be definite, final, and complete for the purpose of giving effect to Article V of the treaty, and that in preparing this legislation you will consider and reach a conclusion on the following questions:

(a) Is any legislation needed, or is the treaty self-acting?

(b) If legislation is needed, shall such legislation permit the diversion on the American side of all the water permitted by the treaty, or shall it restrict the diversion on the American side to the amount now diverted or to some other amount less than that permitted by the treaty?

(c) If the amount authorized by the treaty to be diverted on the American side, which is 4,400 cubic feet per second more than is authorized there to be diverted by the Burton law, how is the allotment of this additional 4,400 cubic feet per second to be determined; and what commission or department of the Executive Government is to determine this allotment and see that it is not exceeded? (d) The treaty places no restriction whatever upon bringing into the United States the power generated on the Canadian side of the Niagara River. Is it desirable to place any such restrictions or is it better to allow the people of the United States to have the use of all the Niagara power that can be brought into the United States?

This matter has been before Congress for six years, but as this is the first time the matter has been brought before this committee it may perhaps save time and answer in advance a great many questions that would otherwise be asked, if I should state as briefly as possible the provisions of previous legislation and the situation at the Falls at the time that such legislation was enacted.

In the autumn of 1905 there were, then as now, four power companies1 and five power houses at or near the Falls using the water from above the Falls. On the American side there were two New York corporations deriving their powers from the Legislature of the State of New York, namely, the Niagara Falls Power Co. and the company whose corporate name is now the Hydraulic Power Co. On the Canadian side there were three Canadian corporations, namely, the Ontario Power Co. of Niagara Falls, the Canadian Niagara Power Co., and the Electrical Development Co. (Ltd.). Three of these companies and four of the power houses and the works connected therewith were entirely owned by American citizens.

In 1905 the companies had made their plans and entered into contracts for the sale of the greater part or all of the following amounts of power, which by the laws then existing and by their agreements with the State and provincial authorities on both sides of the line they were fully authorized to make, as follows:

The works of all of these companies at all five of the power houses were in various stages of progress, but all of them had been undertaken on plans calling for construction of the size above named, and all of them, as above stated, in compliance with the laws, ordinances, and franchises which had hitherto been granted by competent authority.

In the autumn of 1905 the statement was made in various papers that Niagara Falls had been partially ruined and soon would be completely destroyed by the power companies, and legislation was sought to preserve the Falls from this alleged danger. A bill for this purpose was introduced by Mr. Burton, then a Representative from Ohio and chairman of the Rivers and Harbors Committee, and after elaborate hearings during the session of six years ago this bill finally became a law on June 29, 1906. This law made it a misdemeanor, punishable by fine and imprisonment, to do certain things which up to the day before had been perfectly lawful. The things thus forbidden were:

(a) To divert any water from the Niagara River.

(b) To transmit any power from the Dominion of Canada into the United States without the written permit of the Secretary of War; and in granting such permits the Secretary of War was authorized to grant them for diversion of water on the American side only "to individuals, companies, or corporations

1 There are two American and three Canadian corporations; but the Canadian Niagara Power Co. is entirely owned by the Niagara Falls Power Co., so that the number of Independent companies is four.