(lass t- i c 7 
 
PRESERVATION OF NIAGARA FALLS 
 
 HEARINGS 
 
 ON THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 ■H. R. 26688 
 
 SIXTY-PIRST CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION 
 
 RELATING TO THE CONTROL AND REGULATION OF THE WATERS OF 
 NIAGARA RIVER AND THE PRESERVATION OF NIAGARA FALLS 
 
 HELD BEFORE THE 
 
 COMMinEE ON RIVERS AND HARBORS 
 
 OF THE HOUSE OE REPRESENTATIVES 
 OE THE TJXITE]) STATES 
 
 SIXTY-FIRST CONGRESS, THIRD SESSION 
 
 CONSISTING OF 
 
 D. S. ALEXANDER, N. Y., Chainnan. 
 GEORGE P. LAWRENCE, Mass. JOHN K. TENEE, Pa. 
 
 JAMES H. DAVIDSON, Wis. STEPHEN M. SPARKMAN, Pla. 
 
 JAMES McLACHLAN, Cal. JOSEPH E. RANSDBLL, La. 
 
 H. CLIN YOUNG, MiCH. GEORGE P. BUBGESS, Tex. 
 
 HARRY C. WOODYARD, W. Va. BENJAMIN G. HUMPHREYS, Miss. 
 
 WILLIAM A. RODENBERG, III. JOHN A. MOON, Tbnn. 
 
 WILLIAM E. HUMPHREY, Wash. GEORGE W. TAYLOR, Ala. 
 
 MARTIN B. MADDEN, III. J. EDWIN ELLERBE, S. C. 
 
 CHARLES A. KENNEDY, Iowa. CHARLES G. EDWARDS, Ga. 
 
 JAMES H. CASSIDY, Ohio. 
 
 FRANK D. FLETCHER, Clerk. 
 
 JOSEPH H. McGANN, Assistant Olerk. 
 
 WASHINGTON 
 C40VERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
 
 1911 
 
PRESERVATION OF NIAGARA FALLS 
 
 HEARINGS 
 
 ON THE SUBJECT OF 
 
 H. R. 26688 
 
 SIXTY-FIRST CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION 
 
 RELATING TO THE CONTROL AND REGULATION OF THE WATERS OF 
 . NIAGARA RIVER AND THE PRESERVATION OF NIAGARA FALLS 
 
 HELD BEFORE THE 
 
 COMMITTEE ON RIVERS AND HARBORS 
 
 OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 OF THE UNITED STATES 
 
 SIXTY-FIRST CONGRESS, THIRD SESSION 
 
 CONSISTING OF 
 
 D. S. ALEXANDER, N. T., Chairman. 
 GEORGE P. LAWRENCE, Mass. JOHN K. TENER, Pa. 
 
 JAMES H. DAVIDSON, Wis. STEPHEN M. SPARKMAN, Fla. 
 
 JAMES McLACHLAN, Cal. JOSEPH E. RANSDELL, La. 
 
 H. OLIN YOUNG, MiCH. GEORGE F. BURGESS, Tex. 
 
 HARRY C. WOODYARD, W. Va. BENJAMIN G. HUMPHREYS, MiSS. 
 
 WILLIAM A. RODENBERG, ILL. JOHN A. MOON. Tenn. 
 
 WILLIAM E. HUMPHREY, Wash. GEORGE W. TAYLOR, Ala. 
 
 MARTIN B. MADDEN, III. J. EDWIN ELLERBE, S. C. 
 
 CHARLES A. KENNEDY, Iowa. I'lIARLES G. EDWARDS, Ga. 
 
 JAMES H. CASSIDY, Ohio. 
 
 FRANK D. FLETCHER, Clerk. 
 
 JOSEPH H. McGANN, Assistant Clerk. 
 
 WASHINGTON 
 
 GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
 
 1911 
 
r 
 
 n 
 
 ^^\^' 
 
oo:n"tee"ts. 
 
 rage. 
 
 Resolution of the legislature of the State of New York 537 
 
 Statement by Mr. J. Horace McFarland, president of the American Civic 
 Association 537 
 
 Statement by Gen. Francis V. Greene, president of the Niagara, Lockport & 
 
 Ontario Power Co., and vice president of the Ontario Power Co 547 
 
 Memorandum concerning the restrictions on^ the use of Niagara power, sub- 
 mitted by Gen . Francis V. Greene 556 
 
 The Burton law, approved June 29, 1906, and amendatory resolution approved 
 March 3, 1909 559 
 
 Treaty between the United States ard Great Britain on boundary waters 
 between the United States and Canada, signed Jan. 11, 1909, and pro- 
 claimed May 13, 1910 561 
 
 The Alexander bill, H. R. 26688, Sixty-first Congress, second session 567 
 
 Photographs of Niagara Falls taken in 1876, 1885, 1888, 1900, 1905, and 1910 569 
 
 Extracts from the annual reports of the Chief of Engineers, U. S. Army, for 
 1909 and 1910 571 
 
 Statement by Mr. Morris Cohn, jr., representing the Hydraulic Power Co., of 
 Nia,gara Falls 581, 589 
 
 Letter from Mr. Charles Bennett Smith, Member elect of Congress, Buffalo, 
 N. Y 587 
 
 Resolutions of the Chamber of Commerce and Manufacturers' Club, of Buffalo, 
 
 NY 587 
 
 Petition of certain citizens of Buffalo, N. Y., and of the Niagara frontier 588 
 
 Statement by Mr. Frederick L. Lovelace, secretary of the Niagara Falls 
 
 Power Co 590 
 
 Statement by Mr. J. Boardman Scovell, Lewiston, N. Y 593 
 
 Statement by Mr. J. W. Howard, consulting engineer, Erie & Ontario Sanitary 
 
 Canal Co ;........ 603 
 
 Statement by Mr. Isham Randolph, representing the Erie & Ontario Sanitary 
 
 Canal Co 605 
 
 Statement by Mr. Millard F. Bowen, representing the Erie & Ontario Sanitary 
 
 Canal Co 608 
 
 Memorandum submitted by Mr. Isham Randolph, representing the Erie & 
 
 Ontario Sanitary Canal Co _. . . 612 
 
 Statement by Mr. Morris H. Alberger, representing the Niagara County Irriga- 
 tion & Water Supply Co 620 
 
 III 
 
PRESERVATION OF NIAGARA FALLS. 
 
 House of Representatives, 
 Committee on Rivers and Harbors, 
 
 Friday, January 6, 1911. 
 
 The committee met at 11 o'clock a. m., Hon. D. S. Alexander 
 (chairman) presiding. 
 
 The Chairman. This is a public hearing on House bill No. 26688, 
 and notices have been sent out to all persons who it was believed 
 were interested. I have not yet been advised of all the interests 
 present, but Mr. McFarland is here representing the American Civic 
 Association, who is desirous of being heard at an early hour in order 
 to leave for New York. 
 
 I may say at the beginning that it is rumored the Legislature 
 of New York yesterday passed a joint resolution asking that this 
 hearing be deferred until the State of New York can be represented. 
 I am not advised officially that such action has been taken by the 
 legislature, but I would welcome such action. Nevertheless, it seems 
 proper, since so many gentlemen are in the city to-day who desire to 
 be heard, that we go on with this hearing, and then we can post- 
 pone it and await the action of the State of New York, if any is 
 taken. It would be very easy to give further hearings if the State 
 of New York desires to be represented. 
 
 Mr. McFarland, we will be glad to hear from you. Perhaps you 
 had better take that end of the table [indicating] , 
 
 Mr. McFarland. Mr. Chairman 
 
 The Chairman. Just one moment. There has just been handed 
 me this notice : 
 
 State of New York. 
 
 In Senate, Albany, January 4, 1911. 
 By M. BuRD : 
 
 Resolved {if the assembly concur). That the clerk of the senate be directed 
 to communicate with the proper committee of the House of Representatives 
 through its chairman, and request that no final action be taken by such com- 
 mittee on the proposed bill now before it, known as the Alexander electric 
 power bill, until the New York State authorities have an opportunity to examine 
 its provisions and be heard thereon. 
 
 By order of the senate: 
 
 Pateick E. McCabe, Clerk. 
 
 In assembly, January 4, 1911. Concurred in without amendment. 
 By order of the assembly : 
 
 Luke MoHenry, Clerk. 
 
 72684—11 1 537 
 
538 PRESERVATION OF NIAGARA FALLS. 
 
 Certainly there Avill be no positive action taken by this committee 
 until the State of ]S'ew York can be heard, and, as I stated before, I 
 welcome that action on the part of the State. 
 
 Mr. McFarlaxd. Mr. Chairman, in being permitted to discuss this 
 subject at this time I do so hoping that the same policy is being pur- 
 sued as that Avhich the then Secretary of War Taft approved at the 
 first hearing about Niagara Falls in relation to the distribution of 
 water power under the Burton bill. Mr. Taft at that time assumed 
 that inasmuch the American Civic Association represented the public 
 it was proper that it should be first heard. 
 
 The policy of the United States in respect of the control of the 
 waters of the Niagara River at and about Niagara Falls has been 
 consistent since the act of 1905. The association which I have the 
 honor to represent and other organizations called the attention of 
 the Federal Government to its possibilities and its powers. Mr. 
 Roosevelt, in response to an urgent request, recommended to the 
 Congress the nationalization of Niagara Falls, which at that time 
 was taken by the country at large, and certainly legally construed, 
 as the possession of the State of New York. The Congress fol- 
 lowed the suggestion of the President, and as a result of confer- 
 ence the Burton bill was passed, that bill being the direct lineal 
 predecessor of the enactment before the committee to-day. Not 
 only was Mr. Roosevelt interested in this, as is his able successor, the 
 present President, Mr. Taft, both as Secretary of War and now as 
 President, but they have shown themselves alive and interested in 
 Niagara Falls as a spectacle; that is, in Niagara Falls as a world 
 possession. 
 
 Mr. Roosevelt, under date of March 1, 1906, transmitted a report 
 of the American members of the International Waterways Commis- 
 sion, in which occurred this sentence, referring to the power develop- 
 ment at Niagara: 
 
 Whether this commercial asset shall be utilized to such an extent as to seri- 
 ously impair the majesty and scenic beauty oi" the Falls, depends upon the 
 public will. 
 
 That absolutely and fairly stated the situation at that time. The 
 public has spoken ; it has spoken in unmistakable terms in every State 
 and Territory, in every city and hamlet. It has sjjoken by the thou- 
 sand, by the ten thousands; it has spoken through the newspapers 
 and through associations and societies; it has most effectually made 
 known its position ; that is, that the majesty and scenic beauty of the 
 Falls shall not be impaired. 
 
 The Burton bill, which was signed by President Roosevelt on 
 June 29, 1906, endeavored to establish a fair line between private 
 investments in power development at Niagara Falls and the public 
 investment in the glory of Niagara. 
 
 This Burton bill distinctly limited the diversion which might be 
 made for power at 15,600 cubic feet per second. But this committee 
 and the public will take into consideration the fact that the glory of 
 Niagara Falls does not alone depend upon the diversion of waters by 
 the two companies on the American side, but that it very much more 
 depends upon the larger privileges on the Canadian side. It was 
 thoroughly understood that, while the United States had absolutely 
 no control over what the Province of Ontario should choose to do 
 
PRESERVATION OF NIAGARA FALLS. 539 
 
 on that side of the Niagara, it did have control over that portion 
 of the results of such diversion of water as might be transmitted 
 into the United States in the shape of electric power; and, therefore, 
 the terms of the Burton bill included a limitation on the importa- 
 tion of power from Canada into the United States. It was definitely 
 understood then and is now that electric horsepower used in the 
 United States primarily resolves itself into water abstracted from the 
 Niagara River. 
 
 When I had the honor to accompany Mr. Taft about Niagara 
 Falls in 1906, when as Secretary of War he was acting under the 
 provisions of the Burton bill, he was made cognizant of the fact 
 that the boundary line does not end at Goat Island ; that it lies well 
 beyond Goat Island. 
 
 As is well known, Canada is a relatively undeveloped country. I 
 do not know how the situation is now, but five years ago it had a 
 population of 1^ to the square mile, while the United States had a 
 population of 21 to the square mile. It is obviously impossible for 
 the Province of Ontario to use among its own people all the power 
 possible to produce from the utilization of the works already begun 
 on the Canadian side of Niagara Falls. The market for that power 
 is obviously in the United States, and corporations exist to bring 
 in that power and develop it. They now bring it in and develop it 
 in strict accordance with the terms of the Burton bill, limiting and 
 reducing as far as possible the final drain on the Falls. It was 
 insisted at the hearing that the Government through its Army 
 engineers should discover how much water could be diverted from 
 Niagara Falls without seriously injuring its' integrity as a great 
 spectacle. The bill provided that no further permits beyond 15,600 
 cubic feet per second should be issued or granted until after six 
 months of the full use an opportunity had been given to discover the 
 effect of the primary diversions. 
 
 Under that provision of the Burton act the War Department has 
 been making careful surveys of the situation for a long time to dis- 
 cover the effect of these diversions. It has reported, and in that 
 report, made in 1909, page 940, the details are given. I will not 
 take the time of the committee by reading the report in extenso. 
 I will give, and I ask your earnest attention to it, the conclusions 
 arrived at by the Chief of Engineers — that the Falls have unques- 
 tionably been injured by the diversions that have been already made 
 and that additional diversions now underway will add to the damage : 
 
 The combined lowering tends to uncover shallow portions of the crest line 
 of the American Falls. It is further accompanied by greater and, consequently, 
 more harmful effects both in the American rapids and at the easterly, or Ter- 
 rapin Point, end of the Horseshoe Falls. Terrapin Point is on the New York 
 side of the boundary and, as depths there are naturally slight, the loss of 2.5 
 Inches in depth, which is the total due to all existing diversions, is a matter 
 of moment in its relation to continuity of crest line. But it is on the Canadian 
 side of the boundary that the impairment of the Falls is most serious. 
 
 At the Canadian end of the Horseshoe Falls, which is known to be deficient 
 in depth, the diversion of 15,100 cubic feet per second produces a lowering of 
 about 4.8 inches, which is increased to 8.44 inches by the present diversions of 
 the Ontario Power Co., the Electrical Development Co., the Canadian Niagara 
 Power Co., and the International Railway Co., whose total diversion is now esti- 
 mated at 10,950 cubic feet per second. The losses at Terrapin Point and at the 
 west end of the Horseshoe are relatively great, and, as a whole, the Falls have 
 unquestionably been seriously injured by the diversions already made. Addi- 
 tional diversions now under way will add to the damage. 
 
540 PKESERVATION OF NIAGARA FALLS. 
 
 Mr. Edwards. Does that refer to privileges granted by the United 
 States or Canada? 
 
 Mr. McFarland. By both. 
 
 Mr. Madden. "What report is that? 
 
 Mr. McFarland. It is the annual report of the Chief of Engineers 
 for 1909. 
 
 Mr. Young. Who makes that report? 
 
 Mr. McFarland. It is made by that officer. 
 
 Mr. Young. To whom is the report made? 
 
 Mr. McFarland. It is his annual report to the Secretary of War. 
 The report takes up fully the result of diversions on both sides. It 
 surveys the whole situation with reference to diversions and to the 
 admission of power from the Canadian side. 
 
 Mr. Madden. How much water has been diverted ? 
 
 Mr. McFarland. The report mentions a little over 26,000 cubic 
 feet per second. 
 
 Mr. Madden. How many thousand feet go over the Falls? 
 
 Mr. McFarland. Two hundred and twenty-two thousand four 
 hundred cubic feet is supposed to be the average amount. 
 
 Mr. Madden. How many thousand cubic feet per second could be 
 taken away without interfering with the scenic effect? 
 
 Mr. McFarland. If I knew that, I would be a very wise man. 
 
 Mr. Madden. Does anybodj^ know? 
 
 Mr. McFarland. No, sir. The only pretense in that direction has 
 been arrived at by the surveys of engineers. 
 
 Mr. Madden. How do they reach that conclusion? 
 
 Mr. McFarland. By taking measurements, by photographs, and 
 by the methods that engineers usually reach conclusions. 
 
 Mr. Madden. Would a wise layman be able to determine what 
 effect the diversion of the waters would have on the scenic grandeur 
 of the Falls? 
 
 Mr. McFarland. It would be a wise layman who would qualify 
 for that. 
 
 Mr. Madden. Then you do not believe they would be able to reach 
 a conclusion about it? 
 
 Mr. McFarland. I do not believe they could reach an absolutely 
 right conclusion. Scenic effect can not be stated in mathematical 
 terms; it can be stated only in general terms. 
 
 Mr. Madden. Then your argument is not based on mathematical 
 calculations, but on a theory. 
 
 Mr. McFarland. My argument is not based on generalities. A 
 statement as to scenic injury may be based on mathematical calcu- 
 lation. 
 
 Mr. Madden. You believe that a conclusion can be reached exactly, 
 do you? 
 
 Mr. McFarland. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Madden. We are trying to get at the facts so that we can base 
 conclusions on your argument. 
 
 Mr. McFarland. If anyone could take a view or scenic effect and 
 state it in mathematical terms, it would be a very wonderful thing. 
 
 Mr. Madden. What do you base your argument on as to the diver- 
 sion of water? 
 
 Mr. McFarland. I base it upon the statement here made, which 
 certainly checks with my own observation, that the Falls have been 
 
PRESERVATION OF NIAGARA FALLS. 541 
 
 unquestionably injured by the diversions alreadj' made and that 
 diversions under way will add to the damage. 
 
 Mr. Madden, ^^^lat injury has been done to them, in j^our judg- 
 ment? 
 
 Mr. McFarland. Injury has been done by the withdrawal of water. 
 
 Mr. Madden. What effect has that had upon the Falls? What is 
 the injury ? 
 
 Mr. McFarland. The injury is in reducing the volume of water 
 that passes over the crest of the Falls. The smallest abstraction of 
 water from the varied and ragged crest line, even half an inch, might 
 bare a great quantity of rock. Much of the rock has been bared, so it 
 is said by engineers, and in that way the grandeur of the Falls has 
 been interfered with. 
 
 Mr. Madden. Suppose you were to go to Niagara Falls to-day 
 and between now and six months from to-day 10,000 feet of water 
 per second was diverted, do you suppose, as a layman, you woidd be 
 able to see any difference in the Falls as they are to-da}^ and as they 
 would be six months from to-day? 
 
 Mr. McFarland. I think I would. The water is exceedingly low 
 by the Terrapin Rock, and I think an abstraction of 10,000 feet, or 
 the withdrawal of 10,000 feet, would bare a large extent there. 
 
 Mr. Young. You say the engineer has been able to determine how 
 much the crest line has been lowered ? 
 
 Mr. McFarland. Yes, sir; I think I can show you that right now. 
 
 Mr. Young. Does he say how much the crest line has been lowered ? 
 
 Mr. McFarland. Yes, sir; 2.5 inches, as the effect of the diversions, 
 according to this engineer [referring to report]. 
 
 Mr. Young. AMiat proportion is that ? 
 
 Mr. McFarland. I do not know ; the crest line is so uneven. The 
 crest line of the Horseshoe Falls is approximately 500 feet less than 
 it was 10 years ago. 
 
 Mr. Madden. Is that caused by the diversion of water? 
 
 Mr. McFarland. My opinion is that it has been affected by it. On 
 the American side, at the time I speak of, it was supposed that there 
 flowed about 10 per cent of the water, but the present estimate of the 
 engineers is that much less than 10 per cent flows on the American 
 side. The parting of the waters occurs at the head of Goat Island, 
 and on the American side belov/ that point there are two companies 
 developing power under permits from the State of New York, and 
 one of them. I believe, takes water from above the parting of the 
 waters. On the Canadian side but one company takes water from the 
 full breadth of the river above the parting of the waters; that is the 
 Ontario Power Co. The others are below the parting of the waters. 
 
 Mr. Edwards. Have you a map of the Falls ? 
 
 Mr. McFarland. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Madden. Is your argument for the conservation of the natural 
 resources of the country; do you believe in conservation ? 
 
 Mr. McFarland. I would be ^lad, if time permitted, to properly 
 argue that question. Saving Niagara would be a conservation of 
 resources for the benefit of the future; destroying its scenic effect 
 would utterh' disregar<l an enormous source of wealth. 
 
 Mr. Madden. I assume that if such development was made it 
 would be based on equity and justice, and in the interest of the 
 American people. 
 
542 PRESERVATION OF NIAGARA FALLS. 
 
 Mr. McFarland, That is a pretty large assumption. 
 
 Mr. Madden. It is fair to assume that ; just as fair as it is to assume 
 that it is for the benefit of the future. You make an assumption in 
 making that statement. 
 
 Mr. McFarland. I am not making any assumption at all. All the 
 revenue from developing power goes to the benefit of the stock- 
 holders of the companies developing it. 
 
 Mr. Madden. Does the State receive any revenue at all ? 
 
 Mr. McFakland. Not one cent ; nor does the Federal Government. 
 Viewing the matter from the economic standpoint, we should take 
 into consideration the fact that the Falls attract an enormous amount 
 of travel, and the increment from that source is much more widely 
 distributed than it would be from the production of electric power. 
 
 Mr. Young. You made the statement a few moments ago that the 
 Falls belonged to the people of the United States. Upon what do 
 you base that statement ? 
 
 Mr. McFarland. I base that statement upon the fact that the 
 Niagara Falls occur in an international boundary stream, and I cite 
 for you the opinions of ex-Attorney General John W. Griggs, and of 
 ex- Attorney General Moody, and refer you to Hon. Elihu Root. 
 
 Mr. Young. Is it not a fact that the courts have determined that 
 time after time, that the submerged land under an international 
 boundary stream of the United States belongs to the adjoining State 
 and not to the United States? Was not that point decided by the 
 court of appeals of the State of New York and by the Supreme Court 
 of the United States, and that the only control the United States has 
 over the matter is in effecting navigation, or, where it is an inter- 
 national boundary, for its protection as a bulwark or a fort, as you 
 might say ? That is the only control the United States has over it. 
 
 Mr. McFarland. I do not have at this moment the very able state- 
 ment of Gen. Griggs. 
 
 Mr. Young. I think you will find that it goes no further than I 
 have stated. 
 
 Mr. McFarland. It specifically states that the United States has 
 paramount jurisdiction; because, first, it is a navigable river, and, 
 second, because it is an international boundary. 
 
 Mr. Young. But that gives no ownership, except as a matter of 
 control, so far as may be necessary to effect these two purposes. 
 
 Mr. McFarland. May I ask you who you would consider to be the 
 owner ? 
 
 Mr. Young. I think unquestionably the ownership is in the State 
 of New York so far as that portion is concerned which lies on the 
 American side of the international boundary. 
 
 Mr. McFarland. Wliy, then, has the State of New York permitted 
 its grants to be set aside by Federal enactments? 
 
 Mr. Young. That was simply to the extent to which the United 
 States attempted their preservation. This may be theoretical, but the 
 theory on which we were acting was that this is an international 
 boundary, an international defense, the same as a fort, and the Gov- 
 ernment to that extent had a right to control it. I am familiar with 
 the Burton act. 
 
 Mr. McFarland. That act is " for the control and regulation of 
 the waters of Niagara River, for the preservation of Niagara Falls, 
 and for other purposes." Now, if an act can remain in force for four. 
 
PEESERVATION" OF NIAGAKA FALLS. 543 
 
 five, or six years for the preservation of Niagara Falls, is it not fair 
 to assume that Congress has taken up that question? I would 
 further call your attention to section 2 of that act, providing for such 
 regulation and control of Niagara Rivxr and its tributaries as will 
 " not injure or interfere with * * * iy^q scenic grandeur of 
 Niagara Falls." I insist, therefore, that Congress has attempted to 
 preserve the scenery, and I might state to you a great many other 
 instances to the same effect; the Federal Government has certainly 
 done so in establishing national parks. 
 
 Mr. Young. That is national property, owned by the Government. 
 
 Mr. Madden. Is it your contention that the Federal Government 
 has power and authority over the Falls for the purpose of preserving 
 their scenic grandeur? 
 
 Mr. McFarland. It is. 
 
 Mr. Madden. What amount of diversion has been taken from there, 
 approximately ? 
 
 Mr. McFarland. The limit of the treaty with Canada is 56,000 
 cubic feet per second. 
 
 Mr. Madden. That is the authorized diversion; I want to know, 
 approximately, the actual diversion. 
 
 Mr. McFarland. The only persons who could give you that accu- 
 rately would be the engineers. 
 
 Mr. Madden. Have they made their statements public? 
 
 Mr. JMcFarland. I have not seen the statement of the Army en- 
 gineers. I am told by Mr. Lovelace, who is here, that the total 
 diversion authorized by the Burton bill (on the American side) is 
 now being used; it is 15,600 cubic feet per second. The balance of 
 36,000 cubic feet on the Canadian side Gen. Greene can tell you 
 about. 
 
 Gen. Greene. About one-half. 
 
 Mr. Madden. I think it is safe to assume that Congress will not do 
 anything to mar the scenic beautj'^ of Niagara ; what I want to know 
 is the amount of water diverted. 
 
 Mr. McFarland. I am informed that the diversion authorized on 
 the American side, of 15,600 cubic feet, is practically accomplished, 
 and Gen. Greene states that of the authorized diversion on the Cana- 
 dian side about one-half has been accomplished. The ultimate 
 authorizations under the treaty are 56,000 cubic feet per second, and 
 the Army engineer whose words I read to you a moment ago says that 
 at the present the Falls liave been damaged, and that the additional 
 diversions now under way will add to the damage. That is the best 
 statement I can make as to the actual facts of the case. 
 
 I want to say that the bill under your present consideration is not 
 for the protection of Niagara Falls. It assumes to amend sections 2, 
 3. and 5 of the Burton bill. It changes section 2 so that the Secretary 
 of War is authorized to grant permits " to individuals, companies, or 
 corporations which are now actually producing power," and it extends 
 the aggregate daily diversions to 20,000 cubic feet per second. This 
 is perilously close to a direction to the Secretary of War to issue the 
 permits. Then this bill before you also does not take any cognizance 
 Avhatever of the admission of power from Canada. Mv impression is 
 that if this bill becomes a law there will be absolutely no check what- 
 ever on the admission of power from Canada, and that the full 
 36,000 cubic feet per second possible within the limitation of the 
 
544 PRESERVATION OF NIAGARA PALLS. 
 
 treaty will be promptly developed and the current brought into the 
 United States. The bill is not for the protection of Niagara Falls at 
 all. The bill as drawn disregards the intent clearly expressed in the 
 title and in section 2 of the Burton bill. 
 
 Mr. Moon. How many corporations are now withdrawing water 
 from Niagara? 
 
 Mr. McFakland. Five or six. 
 
 Mr. Moon. Does this bill extend to new corporations or to the old 
 corporations ? 
 
 Mr. McFarland. It extends only to those " now actually producing 
 power." On the Canadian side there are two companies that have 
 distributing companies on the American side. This bill confines the 
 additional diversion to be authorized to the present two American 
 companies. 
 
 Mr. Cassidy. Is it probable that application will be made for addi- 
 tional power Avorks, so that that power authorized may be given to 
 some new company? 
 
 Mr. McFarland. I think it would be probable, considering the 
 joressure for additional works on the American side, and I know there 
 will be presented to you to-day a project for a new one which would 
 cause the diversion of much additional water. The question has been 
 extensively discussed about the city of Niagara Falls. I am not 
 interested in the distribution of the loaves and fishes as the result of 
 this bill. 
 
 Mr. Madden. Do you suppose that the people who drew up this 
 treaty that exists between this country and Great Britain had in 
 mind the preservation of the scenic beauty of Niagara Falls when 
 they fixed that quantity of diversions at 56,000 cubic feet per second? 
 
 Mr. McFarland. I am in a position to answer that definitely, be- 
 cause I know that Mr, Bryce and Mr. Root were exceedingly inter- 
 ested in the preservation of the Falls. Mr. Bryce said that if he 
 only had two weeks in Canada as a private citizen he would be able 
 to accomplish something. The Canadians are much concerned about 
 what they call the " white coal " of Niagara. The Province of 
 Ontario does not have a good supply of coal, and they rely upon 
 Niagara as their source of power for light and heat ; they are not in 
 favor of the preservation of Niagara Falls — there is no question 
 about that. The Canadian Government commission distributes elec- 
 tric power to the cities at low rates in Canada; they can buy electric 
 power and light for about one-half of the cost on the American side. 
 
 Mr. MooN. What is it selling for on the American side? 
 
 Mr. McFarland. I do not know the present rate: the last rate I 
 have heard was $12. The rate is much less in Canada than the same 
 rate in the United States. I am not qualified — ^I am not posted — as to 
 the rate on the American side. The Canadian ultimate consumer 
 gets his power at the cost of distribution only, after the wholesale 
 price has been paid at the power house ; the ultimate consumer on the 
 American side gets his plus the cost of distribution and several other 
 pluses. 
 
 Mr. Lawrence. He does not get any tariff on it? 
 
 Mr. McFarland. No, sir; except the tariff of the corporation. 
 
 Mr. Madden. I think we are getting away from the question. I 
 asked the question whether the commissioners who drew the treaty 
 had in mind the preservation of the scenic beaut}' of the Falls. 
 
PRESERVATION OP NIAGARA FALLS. 545 
 
 Mr. McFarland. I mentioned Avhat Mr. Bryce said on the subject 
 and also that Mr. Root was very much interested. After the treaty 
 had been negotiated, but before it had been ratified by either Govern- 
 ment, and when it was possible that it might not be ratified by the 
 United States Senate, Mr. Root said to me that he had tried his best 
 to get concessions from the Canadian Government and that he had 
 given up everything to save Niagara Falls. 
 
 Mr. Madden. Do you suppose they contemplated when they drew 
 the treaty the use and diversion of all the water provided for diver- 
 sion under the treaty ? 
 
 Mr. McFarlakd. No; I feel sure the amounts named were in- 
 tended only as a final and outside limitation. 
 
 Mr. Young. The Canadian companies could not be interested in 
 increasing the amount of the diversions on the American side; that 
 could not have been a concession to Canada; that was a concession 
 to the United States. 
 
 Mr. McFarland. I think that both Governments nuist have been 
 interested. 
 
 Mr. Young. As I understand from your statement, the American 
 commissioners did not increase this amount because they thought 
 it proper to do so, but as a concession to Canada. How can Canada 
 be interested in increasing the amount of water that can be used on 
 the American side while she gets no increase in the amount that can 
 be used on the Canadian side? 
 
 Mr. McFarland. I do not think she is interested in it. 
 
 Mr. Young. Your statement, as I understand it. was that this in- 
 crease from 15,600 cubic feet per second to 20,000 cubic feet was made 
 b}' the American commissioners, not because they believed it ought to 
 be made, but as a concession to Canada. 
 
 Mr. McFarland. I did not intend to make that statement at all. 
 
 Mr. Young. Then why did the American commissioners consent 
 to an increase of the amount which might be diverted on the Ameri- 
 can side if they had in view the desirability of maintaining the scenic 
 beauty of the Falls? 
 
 Mr! McFarland. Without reading the entire document, let me say 
 that the Burton bill authorized the diversion of 15,600 cubic feet per 
 second. Under the Burton bill the Secretary of War was authorized 
 to issue, not sooner than six months after the full 15,600 feet had been 
 used, additional revocable permits up " to such amount, if any, as, in 
 connection with the amount diverted on the Canadian side, shall not 
 injure or interfere with the navigable capacity of said river, or its 
 integrity and proper volume as a boundary stream, or the scenic 
 grandeur of Niagara Falls." 
 
 When the treaty Avas being considered, the report I have read in 
 your hearing by the Chief of Engineers had not been made, and the 
 authorities did not have information as to whether it would be safe 
 to allow this additional amount of diversion. The 4,400 feet extra in 
 the treaty was in the nature of a margin. 
 
 Mr. Madden. As I understand your statement, at the time the 
 treaty was being negotiated, the commissioners did not have the 
 benefit of the report of the Chief of Engineers. 
 
 ^Iv. McFarland. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Moon. As I understand it, your contention is that the Gov- 
 ernment, having the right to give away 20,000 cubic feet per second 
 
546 PEESERVATION OF NIAGAEA FALLS. 
 
 and dispose of it as it shall see fit, and having already exercised that 
 right to the extent of 15,600 feet to two privileged corporations, they 
 should not give more to these privileged corporations? 
 
 Mr. McFaeland. My contention is to limit the quantity to that 
 provided in the Burton bill ; in other words, it is not necessary to give 
 this water away now. It can be given away at any time, but it can 
 not be recovered. No gentleman would insist that after the water 
 has been once used or diverted and expenditures made that it could 
 ever be recovered. 
 
 Mr. Moon. That would depend on the conditions under which it is 
 taken. 
 
 Mr. McFarland. In the progress of electrical science, unquestion- 
 ably more power can be developed from the water to be diverted 
 under the permits. Hydraulic engineers have advanced in knowl- 
 edge. The Canadian branch of the Niagara Falls Power Co. has 
 recently installed a new turbine, under which, as the facts are given 
 in the Electrical World of December 29, 1910, 25 per cent increased 
 capacity has been obtained from the same amount of water. 
 
 Mr. Madden. They have taken out the turbines in Chicago. 
 
 Mr. McFakland. I do not fancy that any of the companies at 
 Niagara Falls will soon take out their turbines. 
 
 Mr. Madden. I do not understand one statement you made; do I 
 understand you to contend that j^ou want the American Congress to 
 refuse to allow Canada to increase the diversion of waters? 
 
 Mr. McFarland. Not at all. My statement was to this purport: 
 That the Congress refuse to admit electrical power, or additional 
 electrical power, from Canada, and thus by indirection control the 
 diversion of water on the Canadian side. 
 
 Mr. Madden. Would you ask us to refuse to allow power generated 
 in Canada to be used in the United States? 
 
 Mr. McFarland. Unquestionably. We have so refused within 
 the limits of the Burton bill ; the law as it stands to-day limits, and 
 limits sharply, the amount of current that can be brought into the 
 United States, and I want that limitation to be allowed to stand 
 as it is. 
 
 Mr. Madden. I understood you to say that one-half of the author- 
 ized diversions is being used on the Canadian side. 
 
 Mr. McFarland. You understood Gen. Greene to say that only 
 about one-half of the authorized power on the Canadian side had 
 been developed. All that is authorized on the American side has 
 been developed. 
 
 Mr. Madden. Your request, then, is that this committee to recom- 
 mend that Congress refuse to permit any of the power developed by 
 the companies in Canada to be sent into the United States. 
 
 Mr. McFarland. In effect, but not in fact. The power is dis- 
 tributed by American firms in the United States; no power is dis- 
 tributed on American territory by the Canadian companies. The 
 power is produced there and delivered to transmission companies and 
 it is distributed in the United States by American companies. 
 
 Mr. Madden. What you want us to do is to refuse to allow trans- 
 mission companies to deliver power produced in Canada in the 
 United States? 
 
PRESEEVATION OF NIAGARA FALLS. 547 
 
 Mr. McFarland. Yes, sir; not beyond the power now authorized. 
 
 Mr. Cassidy. "N^Tiat proportion of the amount of Canadian power 
 authorized to come into the United States is now coming in ? 
 
 Mr. McFakland. I do not know; Gen, Greene could give that 
 information. 
 
 Mr. Cassidy (to Gen. Greene). What proportion of the amount 
 now authorized to be brought in is being brought into the United 
 States? 
 
 Gen. Greene. About three-fourths. Of the total of 160,000 horse- 
 power authorized by the Burton bill, I think about 110,000 or 115,000 
 is now being brought into the United States. 
 
 STATEMENT OF GEN. FRANCIS V. GREENE. 
 
 Gen. Greene. Our proposition is that the treaty, recently pro- 
 claimed by the President between Great Britain and the United 
 States in regard to the boundary waters, is the supreme law of the 
 land, and that that has settled the questions involved; concerning 
 which, Mr. McFarland has argued at great length. 
 
 In the diversion of water on the American side we are not inter- 
 ested. 
 
 I think it proper to say what companies I represent. I represent 
 the Niagara, Lockport & Ontario Power Co., a New York corpora- 
 tion, of which T am president, which distributes power through- 
 out western New York, from Oswego, through Syracuse, Auburn, 
 Rochester, Batavia, Lockport, the vicinity of Buffalo, and Dunkirk. 
 I also represent a Canadian corporation, the Ontario Power Co., of 
 which I am vice president, Avhich generates power on the Canadian 
 side and sells it to the other corporation. The stockholders of these 
 two corporations are entirely separate, except that a few of the 
 stockholders in one corporation are also stockholders in the other; 
 but there is no control of one corporation over the other. They are 
 entirely independent. We do not divert any water on the American 
 side and, therefore, I have nothing to say on that part of the ques- 
 tion. We do import or transmit power from Canada for the benefit 
 of people in western New York, and we sell it as other commercial 
 corporations do — at a profit, but at a ver}^ small profit. 
 
 The Government of Canada, or the Dominion of Canada, has the 
 same jurisdiction over navigable streams that the United States has. 
 The Province of Ontario is the riparian owner at Niagara Falls on 
 the Canadian side. It owns, with slight exceptions, the entire river 
 bank from Lake Erie to Lake Ontario. 
 
 In the vicinity of Niagara Falls it owns a strip nearly one-half a 
 mile wide which it has converted into a public park, under the name 
 of the Queen Victoria Niagara Falls Park, and the park commis- 
 sion, representing the Ontario Province (not the Dominion of 
 Canada) as riparian owner, has made contracts with three power 
 companies, occupying the relation of landlord and tenant. These 
 contracts provide that by way of rental the power companies shall 
 pay a certain amount of money annually to the park commissioners, 
 and that money has furnished the funds with which they have made 
 a very handsome park. This money is paid by the companies not 
 for a franchise or any general right, but simply for the occupation 
 of land on which no taxes are paid. Not only are no taxes paid on 
 
548 PRESEEVATION OF NIAGARA FALLS. 
 
 the land, but there are no taxes paid on the improvements. This 
 money paid to the Ontario Government is for the use of the land. 
 The Dominion Government, under the act of 1867, known as the "con- 
 federation act," which corresponds in some measure to our Consti- 
 tution, in that it defines the relations between the Dominion and the 
 various Provinces comprising the Dominion, claims and exercises the 
 right to control the export of this power from Canada, and it annu- 
 ally grants a license to export certain amounts of poAver by the com- 
 panies that generate it in Canada, and if there is any export of 
 power without such license there is a very heavy penalty by way of 
 fine or imprisonment; so that the control of the export of power 
 is entirely in the Dominion Government, but the ownership of the 
 land is in the Province. 
 
 Now, Mr. McFarland has stated that the coal resources of Ontario 
 are slight. They are nothing; they have no coal in Ontario, and 
 they look to Niagara as the source of power and development for 
 the Province of Ontario. The contracts under Avhich the power 
 companies in Canada occupy this tract of land provide that one- 
 half of the power can be exported to the United States, and I do 
 not think that any more Avill ever be allowed to come out. 
 
 The Chairman. Do you mean the contract with the Province? 
 The Dominion Government has control over the exports. 
 
 Gen. Greene. That is true ; but they are very careful not to destroy 
 vested rights in Canada. Of course the Dominion of Canada could 
 prohibit the export entirely, if they should see fit to do so, but it 
 would amount to confiscation, and I do not think that probable. 
 Now, under these circumstances, the treaty having decided how much 
 water can be diverted on the Canada side, and the Province having 
 made contracts under which one-half of the power made bj^ it may 
 come to the United States, the United States should have the benefit 
 of it, and that is all that we are interested in, viz, that the restrictions 
 made by the Burton bill, under which only 100,000 horsepower can be 
 transmitted to the United States, shall be wiped out. 
 
 Further, in this connection I wish to call attention to the somewhat 
 unique position of the Canadian company for which I speak (namely, 
 the Ontario Power Co.) with respect to the right of exporting power 
 into the United States. The Ontario Power Co. has a Dominion 
 charter; all the other Canadian power companies developing power 
 at Niagara Falls have provincial charters only. The Dominion char- 
 ter of the Ontario Power Co. contains the following grant of powers: 
 
 Tlie said company are hereby empowered, by means of and through the works 
 aforesaid, to supply manufacturers, corporations, and persons with water, 
 hydraulic, electric, or other power, for use in manufactnring or any other busi- 
 ness or purpose, and by means of cables, machinery, and other appliances, and 
 at such rates and upon such conditions as may be agreed upon between the said 
 company and such manufacturers, coriwrations. or persons ; and the said com- 
 pany shall have full power and authority to contract in writing with any 
 company which may have heretofore erected, or which may hereafter erect, a 
 bridge across the Niagara River, for permission, upon such terms as may be 
 agreed ui)oi!, to carry one or more wirps feu- cloctric 'liglit or other purposes upon 
 and over the said liridge toward the Ignited States shore of the Niagara River, 
 and to connect the same, or any other wires or cables which the company may 
 lay across the said river, with "the wires of any electric light company or other 
 company in the United States, and may also contract with such company to 
 work the said electric light or other power jointly. 
 
PEESERVATION OF NIAGARA FALLS. 549 
 
 The validit}^ of this grant has been passed upon and expressly up- 
 held by the Suj^reme Court of Canada in the case of William Hewson 
 V. The Ontario Power Co. reported in volume 36, Supreme Court 
 records (Canada) at page 596. The chief justice in opinion in this 
 case (p. 604), referring to the Ontario Power Co., says: "It may, 
 if it pleases, do business only in the United States, not at all in On- 
 tario." The Dominion Government, therefore, has made a perfectly 
 valid contract with the Ontario Power Co., granting it the right to 
 transmit and sell its product in the United States. 
 
 After obtaining our Dominion charter, we made the contract before 
 referred to with the Province of Ontario, agreeing that we would 
 reserve one-half of our product for sale in Canada, the province ex- 
 pressly agreeing that we could dispose of the other half in the United 
 States. ThuSj the Ontario Power Co. has contracts with the Domin- 
 ion and provincial governments, granting it the right to export at 
 least one-half of its product; and upon the faith of these contracts 
 its enormous property has been created and its securities sold. Under 
 these circumstances, it is not thought that the Dominion Govern- 
 ment will enact any law which Avill violate or destroy this company's 
 right to export power as fixed by these contracts. This company, 
 as stated, enjoys the unique position of having both the Dominion 
 and provincial governments committed to its right to export power 
 from Canada into the United States; and our Government, we be- 
 lieve, should facilitate the importation of all that the Canadian Gov- 
 ernment in any wise permits to be exported. 
 
 The Chairman. At the time the Burton bill was formulated there 
 was no i^ower on the part of anybodj^ to control the amount of water 
 that might be taken from the Canadian side. Hence, I assume that 
 is the reason why a limitation as to importation was inserted. 
 
 Gen. Greene. Now, our contention is that the people of the United 
 States should be permitted to use the power created by this water, 
 as authorized by the treaty, to the extent that Canada will allow the 
 power to come in : that is, so far as the United States is concerned, 
 it should impose no restrictions thereon. P'or that reason we take 
 an opposite view of the matter from Mr. McFarland. 
 
 Mr. Cassidy. What amount of horsepower is generated per cubic 
 foot ? 
 
 Gen. Greene. The Ontario Power Co. gets about 15^ horsepower 
 per cubic foot : the Canadian Niagara Power Co. and the Electrical 
 Development Co. about 11 horsepower per cubic foot. 
 
 Mr. McFarland has exhibited a photograph of the Falls in winter — 
 I do not remember of what year, and I do not know whether he 
 intended to convey an impression that this view of the Falls was 
 taken before the power companies were develoi^ed or not. Fifty 
 years ago, before an}- power companies were there, peoj^le once 
 walked across the rocks above the American Falls. This condition 
 is liable to happen in any winter when the Avind is in the right direc- 
 tion and the thermometer is below zero. 
 
 If it had not been for the failure of the express company, I would 
 have had several photographs here to show the committee. 
 
 The Chairman. Have you copies with which to supply the com- 
 mittee ? 
 
 Gen. Greene. I will have a supply sent to the clerk of the com- 
 mittee. 
 
 72684—11 2 
 
550 PRESERVATION OP NIAGARA FALLS. 
 
 Mr. McFarland read an extract from the report of the Chief of 
 Engineers. He did not read that portion of the report which says 
 that the diversion of the full amount of water by the American 
 power companies will lower the crest of the American Falls by only 
 three-eighths of an inch. (Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers, 
 U. S. Army, for 1909, p. 940.) In order that everyone can examine 
 for himself just what the Government engineers have said, I will 
 append to my statement a complete copy of what is said about 
 Niagara Falls in the reports of the Chief of Engineers and of ]\Iajors 
 Keller and Riche for 1909 and 1910.^ 
 
 Mr. McFarland has also stated that " the crest line of the Horse- 
 shoe Falls is approximately 500 feet less than it was 10 years ago ; " 
 and when asked, " Is that caused by the diversion of water ? " he 
 replied, " My opinion is that it has been affected by it." 
 
 The facts are these: Before there was a park or a power house 
 there, there was a depression in the ground west of Niagara River 
 through which a small amount of water passed and trickled over the 
 rocks at the extreme western end of the Canadian Falls. When the 
 wind was from the east there was no water over it, but when the 
 wind was from the west the water trickled over it. The park com- 
 missioners considered that a very unsightly part of the Falls and 
 built a sidewalk and parapet wall on that ledge of rock, right over 
 the brink, so that visitors could get a good view of the Falls. This 
 change was made by the park commissioners without consulting any 
 power company ; it was made to improve the appearance and accessi- 
 bility of the Falls, and not to injure them; and the diversion of water 
 had nothing to do with it. 
 
 The Chairman. These remarks are being taken stenographically 
 and can be enlarged, and revised. 
 
 Gen. Greene. There is another matter I would like to call to the 
 attention of the committee: The boundary line is not in the deep 
 water on the Canadian side. I refer Mr. McFarland to the report of 
 the waterways commission. He will find that the boundary line is 
 in shallow water close to Goat Island. 
 
 There is one thing that is bound to come up here — I do not know 
 that I should anticipate it — that is, the amount of power per cubic 
 foot of water which the different companies develop. But other 
 people here, I am sure, are going to talk to you about that, and I 
 would rather stick to the things that I am really interested in, and 
 that is to get this power, so far as Canada will let it come into the 
 United States ; bring it in here for the use of our people. 
 
 Mr. Madden. This bill provides that the grant of authority to bring 
 the power in shall be limited to the existilig companies. 
 
 Gen. Greene. I do not so read it. I do not think the bill as I 
 have read it says anything about bringing the power into the United 
 States at all. 
 
 Mr. Madden. It deals with existing companies only. 
 
 Gen. Greene. Only as to the diversion of water, so far as I read it. 
 
 Mr. Madden. Do you think that the power granted in the bill for 
 the diversion of water should be limited to those who are in the water- 
 power business now? 
 
 1 See p. 571. 
 
PRESERVATION OF NIAGARA FALLS. 551 
 
 Gen. Greene. That is the same question Judge Moon asked me, and 
 I tried to dodge it, because I do not know why I should answer it. 
 
 The Chairman. I might say to the committee that this bill was 
 prepared by the Corps of Engineers along the lines of the Burton 
 bill. It has never been intended by me, as the introducer of the bill, 
 that it would be confined to the existing companies, but that it would 
 be thrown open for the Secretary of War to determine how it should 
 be divided. 
 
 Mr. Cassidy. That is, some other company might make a greater 
 use of the water? 
 
 The Chairman. That is, make this simply an enabling act, so that 
 the additional 4,400 cubic feet a second might be divided by the 
 Secretary of War as he sees fit. 
 
 Mr. Cassidy. Your thought being, as I understand it, that some 
 other company might be able to use a much greater head than these 
 present companies? 
 
 The Chair>;man. Oh, yes. 
 
 Gen. Greene. Judge Moon has the backing of the chairman, and 
 if he will allow me, I will now answer the question. 
 
 Mr. Moon. Yes; with the statement in advance that, notwith- 
 standing the chairman's statement, this act plainly and clearly con- 
 fines it to the companies. 
 
 Gen. Greene. I think that act should be amended so as to leave it 
 to the discretion of the Secretary of War, if you want my opinion. 
 
 Mr. Moon. How is that? 
 
 Gen. Greene. I think the act should be so amended as to leave 
 this in the discretion of the Secretary of War, who undoubtedly will 
 do as his predecessor did — have elaborate hearings, go into the 
 question in all its bearings, get the reports from his own engineers, 
 and will then make his decision, making the greatest use of the water. 
 
 Mr. Madden. You would be in favor of cutting out the words 
 " which are now actually producing power ? " 
 
 Gen. Greene. Absolutely. 
 
 Mr. Cassidy. General, I would like to ask one other question, just 
 as a matter of information : How many miles do you now carry the 
 power ? 
 
 Gen. Greene. We carry the power 200 miles now; that is, at 
 60,000 volts. 
 
 Mr. Cassidy. Is that the extreme limit of the art or industry? 
 
 Gen. Greene. No, sir. We are carrying it at 60,000 volts, which 
 was the limit at the time our lines were built, five years ago. Other 
 companies are now carrying it at 110,000 volts, and some are talking 
 of 150,000 volts. Volts, you understand, are the pressure. The dis- 
 tance it can be carried is approximately proportional to the voltage, 
 so that if we carry it 200 miles successfully at 60,000 volts and it 
 is demonstrated that 120,000 volts are commercially feasible, we will 
 then be able to take it 400 miles. 
 
 Mr. Madden. Do you get any higher price for your power 100 miles 
 away than you do 10 miles away? 
 
 Gen. Greene. Oh, yes. 
 
 Mr. Madden. Give us the figures in proportion to the distance, 
 please. 
 
552 PEESERVATION OF NIAGARA FALLS. 
 
 Gen. Greene. At Syracuse, 160 miles, approximately $30 ; at Lock- 
 port, $16, a distance of approximately 18 miles; and between the 
 two roughly proportional to the distance. 
 
 Mr. Madden. Does it cost the difference between $16 and $30 to 
 transmit ? 
 
 Gen. Greene. About that. 
 
 Mr. Madden. What does it cost to develop horsepower by means 
 of coal? 
 
 Gen. Greene. It depends entirely on the number of hours in the 
 day you use it. 
 
 Mr. Madden. Say, a 10-hour day? 
 
 Gen. Greene. For a 10-hour daj' it would be about 
 
 Mr. Young. Do you mean at Buffalo? 
 
 Gen. Greene. Based on coal at about $2? 
 
 Mr. Madden. Yes; say $2. Would it cost about $30? 
 
 Gen. Greene. I should say more. For a 10-hour day I should say 
 about $30, with the most up-to-date improved apparatus. We sell 
 the power for 24 hours continuously. 
 
 Mr. Young. For $30 and $16? 
 
 Gen. Greene. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Young. So it is very much cheaper than coal? 
 
 Gen. Greene. Oh, yes ; there is no question about that. While the 
 rates of fare on the Syracuse cars and the Rochester cars, which are 
 run on our power, are 5 cents, just as they are in New York or Seattle, 
 yet there are a great many more lines built in those two cities, due to 
 this power, than there would be if they had to make their power out of 
 coal, and the public gets the advantage in a greater extension of 
 trolley lines, and in a lower rate for electric lights in their houses, 
 than they would if the power were made out of coal. 
 
 Mr. Madden. What do the}^ charge them per kilowatt-hour for 
 electric lights in the houses ? 
 
 Gen. Greene. My impression is it is 8 cents; in most other 
 cities, 10. 
 
 Mr. Madden. That is regardless of the quantity of electricity con- 
 sumed, is it not? 
 
 Gen. Greene. That is for the smallest consumer. The biggest 
 consumer has it very much less than that. 
 
 Mr. Madden. What does it cost to develop that kilowatt-hour, about 
 1 cent, or three-quarters of a cent? 
 
 Gen. Greene. You mean the generating station? 
 
 Mr. Madden. Yes. 
 
 Gen. Greene. I have never figured it out by the kilowatt-hour. I 
 know what it costs per horsepower, for a unit of horsepower, to 
 develop it. It costs about $95 to $100 per horsepower, to install. 
 
 Mr. Madden. I do not quite understand that. 
 
 Gen. Greene. If you have a 100,000-horsepower station at Niagara 
 Falls, you have $10,000,000 invested. 
 
 Mr. Madden. You are talking about what it costs to install— the 
 capitalization ? 
 
 Gen. Greene. No, I am not talking about capitalization; I am 
 talking about actual cost, money out of pocket. 
 
 Mr. Madden. Per horsepower? 
 
 Gen. Greene. Yes, sir. 
 
PRESERVATION OF NIAGARA FALLS. 553 
 
 Mr. Madden. It would cost you how much, you say, $95? 
 
 Gen. Greene. $95 to $100. If you have 100,000 horsepower, you 
 have spent $10,000,000 to create it' 
 
 Mr. Madden. How can you sell that for $16 or $30 if it costs you 
 $95? 
 
 Mr. Cassidy. That is the original cost of the plant. 
 
 Mr. Madden. I am talking about what it costs to develop, not the 
 plant. I thought I made myself understood. I did not want to 
 know how much money ^'■ou had invested in your business. I want 
 to know how much it costs you to produce the thing you sell for 8 
 cents ? 
 
 Gen. Greene. We do not sell it for 8 cents. 
 
 Mr. Madden. Somebody does. 
 
 Gen. Greene. That somebody would have to answer your ques- 
 tion. We sell it at 60,000 volts to the public-service corporations. 
 
 Mr. Madden. They transform it? 
 
 Gen. Greene. They transform it, and have the distribution sys- 
 tem throughout the cities, and they collect from the ultimate con- 
 sumer. I do not know anything about that end of the business. 
 You are evidently familiar with kilowatt-hours. I can tell you how 
 much they pay us per kilowatt-hour. 
 
 Mr. Madden. All right. 
 
 Gen. Greene. It ranges from 4 to 8 mills. 
 
 Mr. Young. But they have to transform it? 
 
 Gen. Greene. They have to transform it and distribute it and 
 maintain their distributing systems. It is an entirely different 
 branch of the business. 
 
 Mr. Young. As I understand, Gen. Greene, you represent one of 
 these companies? 
 
 Gen. Greene. I am president of one, vice president of another. 
 
 Mr. Young. AYhich companies? 
 
 Gen. Greene. The Niagara, Lockport & Ontario Power Co., a New 
 York corporation, I am the president of; the Ontario Power Co., of 
 Niagara Falls, a Canadian corporation, I am vice president of; and 
 those two companies have the relation of buyer and seller of power. 
 The Ontario Power Co. generates and sells to the Niagara-Lock- 
 port Co. 
 
 Mr. Young. And about what proportion of the power now gener- 
 ated there do you generate, }■ our company ? 
 
 Gen. Greene. Our last load report showed, I think, Y6,000 or 
 78,000 horsepower generated on the Canadian side, and I think Mr. 
 Lovelace's company shows about 53,500, and the third company per- 
 haps 35,000, or at the most 40,000. I can not speak as accurately for 
 them as I can for myself, of course. 
 
 Mr. Madden. One hundred and seventy-five thousand? 
 
 Gen. Greene. About that. If this treat}'' is carried into effect and 
 the companies on the Canadian side use this 36,000 feet per second 
 
 Mr. Young. You say they do use it ? 
 
 Gen. Greene. I say "if." You have figured up the amount at the 
 present time, and I was going to anticipate your question of what 
 there would be if the whole amount of water on the Canadian side 
 were used. In that event the Canadian Niagara would generate 
 
554 PEESERVATION OF NIAGARA FALLS. 
 
 110,000; the Electrical Development Co., 125,000; and we, 180,000, or 
 about 415,000. In other words, one hundred and seventy-odd thou- 
 sand is now being used, with a possibility of 415,000. 
 
 Mr. Lawrence. That is, under legislation as it now exists you 
 could develop that amount, 415,000 horsepower? 
 
 Gen. Greene. Could develop that amount, but we could not bring 
 it into the United States under the legislation as it now exists. 
 
 Mr. Lawrence. How much could you bring into the United States 
 under legislation as it now exists? 
 
 Gen. Greene. One hundred and sixty thousand ; that is the limit of 
 the Burton bill. 
 
 Mr. Edwards. Are you equipped to develop more than the 160,000 
 now? 
 
 Gen. Greene. The companies are all enlarging their works. We 
 are just finishing a very considerable enlargement of ours, and the 
 Canadian Niagara has just installed a new unit; the Electrical De- 
 velopment Co., I understand, is placing orders for one or more addi- 
 tional units. The development goes on as the market increases, either 
 in Canada or in the United States. 
 
 Mr. Lawrence. Wliat I wanted to get at by my former question 
 was, how much additional power can be brought in from Canada 
 under existing legislation than is now being used of that 160,000 ? 
 
 Gen. Greene. Of the 160,000 now authorized — I previously stated 
 one company has not availed itself of its privileges. It has a per- 
 mit for 46,000 horsepower, but it has never been utilized. The 
 other two companies, which have permits for 112,000, have utilized 
 practically the whole of their permits. 
 
 Mr. Edwards. Is there any provision in that permit to this com- 
 pany that has not utilized its franchise or permit to the effect that 
 if it fails to exercise its rights, its charter is to be forfeited, or any- 
 thing of that kind? 
 
 Gen. Greene. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Madden. General, is there anything in this bill, any refer- 
 ence whatever, to the importation of electrical power from the Cana- 
 dian side to the American side? 
 
 Gen. Greene. I do not find it as I read it. 
 
 Mr. Madden. Then why are we talking about the importation of 
 power ? 
 
 Gen. Greene. Because there is a law at the present time which 
 distinctly' limits it. 
 
 Mr. Madden. But the bill that is before this committee only pro- 
 vides 
 
 Gen. Greene. It amends the law. 
 
 Mr. Madden. This bill provides that authority shall be given to 
 the existing companies to develop the w^ater power that can be de- 
 veloped b}^ the diversion of the unapj)ropriated power authorized 
 under the treaty, the difference between 15,600 and 20,000 — 4,400 feet 
 a second; is that not what the bill provides? 
 
 Gen. Greene. Yes, sir ; but b}^ its silence, as it amends the Burton 
 bill, which does restrict the transmission of power from Canada, 
 that bill changes existing law. 
 
 Mr. Madden. Do you mean to say that the silence of this bill on 
 the matter referred to in the Burton bill changes the conditions that 
 exist under the Burton bill? 
 
PRESERVATION OF NIAGARA FALLS. 555 
 
 Gen, Greene. Yes, sir; because there was never any restriction 
 until the Burton bill was enacted into law. 
 
 Mr. Lawrence. In other words, if we figure under this bill 20,000, 
 we can take so much less power from Canada. If you increase the 
 diversion on the American side, you can take so much less from 
 Canada ? 
 
 Gen. Greene. I do not see that. 
 
 The Chairman. The amendment in this bill simply takes away 
 any limitation heretofore existing under the Burton bill. 
 
 Mr. Madden. Lifts the limitation. 
 
 The Chairman. In other words, it lets in all the power that 
 Canada will allow to come. 
 
 Mr. Cassidy. That would be about 47,000 additional horsepower, 
 as I understand it? 
 
 Gen. Greene. About 47,000 or 50,000 additional to what the Bur- 
 ton bill permits. 
 
 Mr. Cassidy. That is what I mean, in addition to the 160,000; 
 47,000 additional. 
 
 Gen. Greene. It lets in nearly double what is coming in with the 
 two companies exercising their full rights and the third company 
 doing nothing. 
 
 Mr. Cassidy. There are some companies now ready and willing to 
 take up, say, that 46,500, or an equivalent amount? 
 
 Gen. Greene. Keady to transmit it into the United States? 
 
 Mr. Cassidy. Yes. 
 
 Gen. Greene. Yes, sir, 
 
 Mr. Cassidy. But this one company does not exercise it ? 
 
 Gen. Greene. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Cassidy. What is the reason for that? 
 
 Gen, Greene, It is a very expensive thing to build transmission 
 lines, 
 
 Mr, Casstoy. Has an effort been made to transfer that power, to 
 bring it in from that company to some other company? 
 
 Gen, Greene, Not that I know of, 
 
 Mr, Madden. Who controls this company? 
 
 Gen, Greene, Canadians, 
 
 Mr, Madden, The company that is not transmitting power into the 
 United States? 
 
 Gen. Greene. Yes, sir, 
 
 Mr, Cassidy, But their permit runs from the Secretary of War of 
 the United States? 
 
 Gen, Greene, Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr, Madden, Have any of the stockholders of this company any 
 connection with any companj^ 3'ou are interested in ? 
 
 Gen. Greene, No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Madden. Are you a stockholder? 
 
 Gen, Greene, No, sir. 
 
 Mr, Madden, Are Siuy of jouv associates stockholders in it? 
 
 Gen, Greene, No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Madden. Are any of 3'our associates in the American company 
 connected with this Canadian company that is not transmitting into 
 the United States? 
 
 Gen. Greene. No, sir; there are no financial relations of any kind. 
 
556 PKESERVATIOX OF NIAGARA FALLS. 
 
 Mr. Maddex. Existing betAveen you and your associates and any 
 of the people interested in this company? 
 
 Gen. Greene. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Cassidy. You would not say it was a dog in the manger bill 
 there, would you? 
 
 Gen. Greene. Xo; I think they have hesitated to make the invest- 
 ment. 
 
 Mr. Cassidy. But hung onto the right to do it ? 
 
 Gen. Greene. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Edwards. Is that company represented here to-day b}^ an3"one ? 
 
 Gen. Greene. It was repre:^ented at the previous hearing bj' Mr. 
 John G. Johnson, of Philadelphia. I do not see him here. 
 
 Mr. Young. Gen. Greene, am I correct in understanding that if 
 this bill passes and the diversion of this 4,400 additional cubic feet 
 of water were permitted, all of the power it would develop would be 
 developed in the United States? 
 
 Gen. Greene. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Young. So it makes an increase of exactly that amount of 
 power to be developed in this country? 
 
 Gen. Greene. Yes, sir. The amount of power which will be de- 
 veloiDcd depends upon who gets it and the amount of head. 
 
 Mr. Young. Certainly. 
 
 In addition to his oral statement Gen. Greene submits the fol- 
 lowing : 
 
 With the permission of tlie committee I should like to say tliat I think Mr. 
 Scovell labors under an erroneous impression in rejiwrd to the negotiation of 
 the treaty. I understood him to say that he was called frequently into con- 
 ference by Secretary Root and Ambassador Bryce wliile the treaty was under 
 negotiation, and that he endeavored to have an article incorporated in the 
 treaty to provide for the export of power from Canada : that the Canadians 
 were not willing to agree to this, and that as a compromise tlie diversion of an 
 additional 4,400 cubic feet of water on the American side was authorized. 
 
 I think that if Senator Root, wlio as Secretary of State negotiated the treaty, 
 were calle(i to the stand his testimony would be not what Mr. Scovell has stated, 
 but that lie did endeavor to have an article incorporated in the treaty provid- 
 ing that there slionld be no restriction by eitlier the United States or by Canada 
 on the transmission of power across the boundary by way of export duty, import 
 duty, or otherwise; that the Canadians were unwilling to agree to this, but they 
 gave Mr. Root unqualified assurances that the provisions of the contracts be- 
 tween the Canadian power companies and the Ontario Government by which 
 these power companies are autliorized to send half of their power to the United 
 States, would be fully and absolutely respected, notwithstanding the provisions 
 of the export law of the Dominion of Canada ; and that on the faith of such 
 assurances Mr. Root waived the article in I'egard to the transmission of power 
 across tlie boundary. 
 
 I think Mr. l{oot will testify tliat the diversion of 4,400 cubic feet additional 
 on the American side had no connection with the question of export of power 
 from Canada. 
 
 I make this statement on my own responsibility, without consulting Senator 
 Root, because it seems undesirable that the statement of Mr. Scovell should go 
 into the record unchallenged. If the committee considers the matter of suffi- 
 cient importance, of course they can ask Senator Root himself in regard to the 
 negotiations connected with the treaty. 
 
 MEMORANDUM CONCKRNING THE RESTRICTIONS OX THE X'SE OF NIAGARA POWER. 
 
 [Submitted by Gen. Francis V. Greene, together with certain exhibits.] 
 
 December 1, 1910. 
 First. The campaign for the purpose of preserving the scenic grandeur of 
 Niagara Falls was begun by tlie American Civic Association in the summer of 
 
PRESERVATION OF NIAGARA FALLS. 557 
 
 1905. Tlie association asserted that Niagara Falls had beeu seriously injured 
 by the power companies, and unless legislation was enacted by Congress the 
 Falls would speedily be entirely ruined. The annual meeting of the association 
 was held at Cleveland in the autunui of 1905. and the association secured the 
 support of Mr. Burton, then Member of Congress from that district. The Presi- 
 dent of the United States in his annual message to Congress briefly recom- 
 mended that legislation be enacted to preserve the Falls from destruction. The 
 association procuretl the signatures, it is said, of 100,000 people asking for such 
 legislation. Soon after the meeting of Congress Mr. Burton introduced his 
 bill, entitled "An act for the control and regulation of the waters of Niagara 
 River, for the preservation of Niagara Falls, and for other purposes." Numerous 
 hearings were held before the Itivers and Harbors Committee, of which Mr. 
 Burton was then chairman, at which the constitutionality of the proposed legis- 
 lation, the necessity for it, and the form of it were elaborately argued. 
 
 The bill was passed and approved by the President on June 29, 1906.^ It 
 was to remain in force for three years, but on March 3. 11X)9, it was, by joint 
 resolution, extended for two years. 
 
 Unless further extended, it will expire by limitation on June 29, 1911. 
 
 Second. Section 4 of the act requested the President of the United States to 
 negotiate a treaty with the Government of Great Britain, providing " for such 
 regulation and control of the waters of Niagara River and its tributaries as 
 Aviil preserve the scenic grandeur of Niagara Falls and of the rapids in said 
 river." Such a treaty was negotiated, ratified by the Senate on March 3, 1909, 
 ratified by Great Britain in ]March, 1910. and proclaimed by the President to 
 be in force from and after May 13, 1910.' 
 
 Third. The treaty is the supreme law of the land. The Burton law is in 
 some respects inconsistent with the treaty. 
 
 The Burton law restricts the diversion of water on the American side to 
 15,600 cubic feet per second; the treaty raises the limit of restriction to 20,000 
 cubic feet per second. 
 
 The Burton law places restrictions upon the amount of power which can 
 be transmitted into the United States from Canada ; the treaty makes no re- 
 striction on the transmission of power from Canada into the United States. 
 
 Under these circumstances Mr. Alexander, Meiuber of Congress from Buffalo, 
 introduced a bill in June, 1910,'' amending the Burton law s<» as to make it 
 comply with the terms of the treaty, and extending the operations of the 
 Burton law thus amended so long as the treaty remains in force. The Alex- 
 ander bill increases the amount of water which can be diverred on the Ameri- 
 can side from 15,600 cubic feet per second to 20,000 cubic feet per second ; and 
 it leaves out of the bill all restrictions upon the tran.smissii>n of power from 
 Canada into the United States. In other respects the original Burton law is 
 not changed. The original law was intended, in pursuance of its purpose to 
 preserve Niagara Falls, to prevent any new i)Ower projects from being started 
 at Niagara ; and it therefore stipulated that the permits, which under the law 
 the Secretary of War was authorized to issue for the diversion of water on 
 the American side, should be issued only to those individuals, companies or 
 corporations which Avere at that time actually producing ]>ower " from the 
 waters of said river, or its tributaries, in the State of New York, or from the 
 Erie Canal." The original law also prescribed penalties of tine and imprison- 
 ment for violations of the law, and gave jurisdiction over such cases to the 
 United States circuit court. These provisions in identical language are re- 
 peated in the Alexander bill, which is simply the Burton law amended to 
 accord with the treaty. 
 
 Fourth. Prior to the introduction of the Burton law two American and three 
 Canadian corporations, acting on the faith of laws enacted and contrai-ts made 
 by and with the State of New York, the Province of Ontario, and the Dominion 
 of Canada, had undertaken the construction of five extensive projects for 
 the development of power, three of them on the Canadian and two of them 
 on the American side. At that time upward of $30,(X>0,000 had been ex- 
 pended on these projects, wliich were all of them incomplete; but relying 
 upon the rights granted to them by the public authorities on both sides of 
 the river, the companies had made their plans and entered into contracts, 
 which would have entailed enormous financial loss, if not entire ruin, unless 
 the companies had been permitted to carry out these projects. It was quite 
 
 1 See Exhibit A, page 550. -See ICxliihit It, piitri^ .")01. •" Sim^ Exhibit C. page 5(>7. 
 
558 PRESERVATION OF NIAGARA FALLS. 
 
 clearly shown in the hearings before the Burton committee that the diversion 
 of the water necessary to carry out to their full extent the projects which 
 then were only partially completed, would not result in any serious injury 
 to the scenic grandeur of Niagara Falls. Nevertheless, the Burton law only 
 provided for the partial completion of these projects. Its restrictions upon 
 the diversion of water on the American side and the transmission of power 
 from the Canadian side were such that the companies would only have been able 
 partially to complete their projects. This injustice and inequity were remedied 
 by the treaty, which was the result of negotiations extending over nearly two 
 years in which the whole subject was thoroughly examined with the aid of 
 government experts on both sides. The treaty carries out the original purpose 
 of the Burton Act to pi-eserve the scenic grandeur of Niagara Falls by pre- 
 venting any new power enterprises, but it permits the companies which had 
 expended such enormous sums of money to carry out the plans which they 
 had formed on the faith of the law as it stood when such plans were made. 
 These plans contemplated the use of a small portion of the waters of Niagara 
 for the delivery of cheap electrical power to the people of central and western 
 New York, nearly 2,500,000 in number, occupying a broad belt more than 200 
 miles in length between Utica and Dunkirk. Buffalo and the entire 
 Niagara frontier from Niagara Falls to the steel industries at Lackawanna, 
 as well as the cities of Rochester, Syracuse, Auburn, Lockport, Jamestown, 
 Dunkirk, Batavia, and many smaller communities are vitally interested in 
 seeing that this treaty is carried into effect, and that it should no longer be 
 practically nullified by the Burton law, in its present form. 
 
 Unless the treaty is given full effect the industries of central and western 
 New York will be seriously crippled and their development arrested, because 
 the companies which now have transmission lines, of a total length of 500 
 miles, supplying Niagara power to these industries, have about reached the 
 limit of the power which they can obtain unless the Alexander bill is enacted 
 into law. 
 
 Fifth. The average flow of the Niagara River, as determined by the observa- 
 tions of the United States engineers extending over a period of 51 years, is 
 212,000 cubic feet per second. The treaty authorizes 20,000 cubic feet to be 
 taken out above the Falls on the American side and 36,000 cubic feet on the 
 Canadian side, a total of 56,000 cubic feet, or about one-fourth of the entire 
 amount. 
 
 The amount of power which can be produced by 1 cubic foot per second 
 varies among the different power companies from 9 horsepower to 17 horse- 
 power, depending upon where the water is taken and the nature of the installa- 
 tion. The average is a little less than 13 horsepower per cubic foot. The 
 total amount of powder which could be developed at Niagara on the basis of 
 using all of the average flow of the river is therefore about 2,750,000 horse- 
 power, and the amount of power that can be developed under the restrictions 
 imposed by the treaty will be less than 700,000 horsepower. The present instal- 
 lation at the falls is approximately 400,000 horsepower, which will shortly be 
 increased to about 450,000 horsepower. 
 
 Sixth. Elaborate measurements taken by the United States engineers in 
 1908. at a time when the American power houses were all temporarily shut 
 down, show that the difference in depth in the water passing over the American 
 Fall when the power houses are in operation and when not a w^heel is turning 
 is only a fraction of an inch. This is determined by minute and complicated 
 scientific measurements. It is not visible to the eye, and it has no effect upon 
 the scenic grandeur of Niagara Falls. 
 
 In Exhiljit D are reproductions of photographs^ of the Falls taken in 1876, 
 1885, and 1888, when there were no electric power plants: in 1900 and 1905, 
 when the amount of poAver in use was about 100,000 horsepower, and in 1910, 
 when the amount was more than 330,000 horsepower. These photographs show 
 that under similar conditions, in spite of an increasing diversion of water for 
 power puri)oses, the appearance of the Falls prv-sents no ehansie which can be de- 
 tected by the eye. It can be confidently asserted that under the restrictions im- 
 posed by the treaty it will require scientific measurements to detect the change in 
 the depth of the water at the Falls, but that this eh.-uige will not be visible to 
 the eye. The scenic grandeur of Niagara Falls will be preserved unimpaired. 
 
 Seventh. The production of 1 horsepower continuously for 24 hours through- 
 out every day in the year requires the consumption, under the most improved 
 and modern apparatus, of about 13 tons of coal per annum. The treaty has 
 
 ^ See page 569. 
 
PRESERVATION OF NIAGARA FALLS. 559 
 
 decided that about 700,000 horsepower cau be taken from Niagara without 
 affecting its scenic grandeur. To produce this amount of power by coal would 
 requii-e about 8,500,000 tons of coal per annum. This is a comparatively small 
 portion of the 450,000,000 tons of coal consumed in the United States every 
 year. But it is still worth saving. There is absolutely no destruction of natu- 
 ral resources in the use of falling water for producing power. The eternal laws 
 of gravity, evaporation, and precipitation form a cycle in which the sun's heat is 
 the ultimate source of energy ; and in this cycle the loss of such energy is inap- 
 preciable and can not be measured by any instruments or methods known to man. 
 
 The scenic grandeur of Niagara appeals to the imagination as a manifestation 
 of overwhelming force. The utilization of a small portion of this titanic force 
 by the wit and brain of man for the benefit of his fellow men equally appeals 
 to the imagination ; and the thousands of visitors who annually go through 
 the different power houses are quite as much impressed by the evidences which 
 they there see of mechanical ingenuity and of the control by man over gigantic 
 force as they are by the spectacle of this gigantic force going to waste. 
 
 Eighth. The treaty runs for five years from May, 1910, and thereafter until 
 terminated by either country on one year's notice. It has determined and 
 fixed, after the most careful consideration, the restrictions which so long as 
 the treaty remains in foi-ce are placed upon the use of Niagara water for power 
 purposes. 
 
 Under the contracts made with the Canadian authorities by the Canadian 
 power companies one-half of the power generated in Canada can be transmitted 
 to the United States. The Burton law undertakes to nullify these contracts 
 by limiting the amount of power which could be brought in from Canada. The 
 treaty, recognizing that no harm could be done to Canada and much good 
 could be done to the United States by bringing in this surplus power from Can- 
 ada, placed no restrictions upon the transmission of power from Canada, so 
 that the manufacturers of western New York might have the benefit of all the 
 power which under their agreements with the Canadian authorities the Cana- 
 dian power companies can send here. 
 
 It only remains to enact such legislation as will give full force and effect to 
 the treaty ; and this is done by the Alexander hill. 
 
 Fraxcis V. Greene. 
 
 Exhibit A. 
 
 THE BURTON LAW. 
 
 [Public, No. 367.] 
 
 An Act For the control and regulation of the waters of Nlasara River, for the preservation 
 of Niagara Falls, and for other purposes. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
 States of America in Congress assembled. That the diversion of water from 
 Niagara River or its tributaries, in the State of New York, is hereby prohibited, 
 except with the consent of the Secretary of War as hereinafter authorized in 
 section two of this act: Provided, That this prohibition shall not be interpreted 
 as forbidding the diversion of the waters of the Great Lakes or of Niagara 
 River for sanitary or domestic purposes, or for navigation, the amount of which 
 may be fixed from time to time by the Congress of the United States, or by the 
 Secretary of War of the United States under its direction. 
 
 Sec. 2. That the Secretary of War is hereby authorized to grant permits for 
 the diversion of water in the United States from said Niagara River or its 
 tributaries for the creation of power to individuals, companies, or corporations 
 which are now actually producing power from the waters of said river, or its 
 tributaries, in the State of New York, or from the Erie Canal ; also permits for 
 the transmission of power from the Dominion of Canada into the United States, 
 to companies legally authorized therefor, both for diversion and transmission, 
 as hereinafter stated, but permits for diversion shall be issued only to the indi- 
 viduals, companies, or corporations as aforesaid, and only to the amount now 
 actually in use or contracted to be used in factories the buildings for which 
 are now in process of construction, not exceeding to any one individual, com- 
 pany, or corporation as aforesaid a maximum amount of eight thousand six 
 hundred cubic feet per second, and not exceeding to all individuals, companies. 
 
560 PRESERVATION OF NIAGARA FALLS. 
 
 or corporations as aforesaid an aggregate amount of fifteen thousand six hun- 
 dred cubic feet per second ; but no revocahle permits shall be issued by the said 
 Secretary under the provisions hereafter set forth for the diversion of addi- 
 tional amounts of water from the said river or its tributaries until the approxi- 
 mate amount for which permits may be issued as above, to wit, fifteen thou- 
 sand six hundred cubic feet per second, shall for a period of not less than six 
 months have been diverted from the waters of said river or its tributaries, in 
 the State of New York : Provided, That the said Secretary, subject to the pro- 
 visions of section five of this act, under the limitations i-elating to time above 
 set forth is hereby authorized to grant revocable permits, from time to time, to 
 such individuals, companies, or corporations, or their assigns, for the diversion 
 of additional amounts of water from the said river or its tributaries to such 
 amount, if any, as, in connection with the amount diverted on the Canadian 
 side, shall not injure or interfere with the navigable capacity of said river, or 
 its integrity and proper volume as a boundary stream, or the scenic grandeur of 
 Niagara Falls; and that the quantity of electrical power which may by permits 
 be allowed to be transmitted from the Dominion of Canada into the United 
 States shall be one hundred and sixty thousand horsepower : Provided further. 
 That the said Secretary, subject to the provisions of section five of this act, 
 may issue revocable permits for the transmission of additional electrical power 
 so generated in Canada, but in no event shall the amount included in such per- 
 mits, together with the said one hundred and sixty thousand horsepower and 
 the amount generated and used in Canada, exceed three hundred and fifty 
 thousand horsepower : Provided always, That the provisions herein permitting 
 diversions and fixing the aggregate horsepower herein permitted to be trans- 
 mitted into the United States, as aforesaid, are intended as a limitation on the 
 authority of the Secretary of War, and shall in no wise be construed as a direc- 
 tion to said Secretary to issue permits, and the Secretary of War shall make 
 regulations preventing or limiting the diversion of water and the admission of 
 electrical power as herein stated ; and the permits for the transmission of elec- 
 trical power issued by the Secretary of War may specify the persons, com- 
 panies, or corporations by whom the same shall be transmitted, and the per- 
 sons, companies, or corporations to whom the same shall be delivered. 
 
 Sec. 3. That any person, company, or corporation diverting water from the said 
 Niagai'a River or its tributaries, or transmitting electrical power into the United 
 States from Canada, except as herein stated, or violating any of the provisions 
 of this act, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof 
 shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars 
 nor less than five hundred dollars, or by imprisonment (in the case of a natural 
 person) not exceeding one year, or by both such punishments, in the discretion 
 of the court. And, further, the removal of any structures or parts of structures 
 erected in violation of this act, or any construction incidental to or used for 
 such diversion of water or transmission of power as is herein prohibited, as 
 well as any diversion of water or transmission of power in violation hereof, 
 may be enforced or enjoined at the suit of the United States by any circuit 
 court having jurisdiction in any district in which the same may be located, 
 and proper proceedings to this end may be instituted under the direction of 
 the Attorney General of the United States. 
 
 Sec. 4. That the President of the United States is respectfully requested to 
 open negotiations with the Government of Great Britain for the purpose of 
 effectually providing by suitable treaty with said Government, for such regula- 
 tion and control of the waters of Niagara River and its tributaries as will pre- 
 ' serve the scenic grandeur of Niagara Falls and of the rapids in said river. 
 
 Sec. 5. That the provisions of this act shall remain in force for three years 
 from and after date of its passage, at the expiration of which time all permits 
 granted hereunder by the Secretary of War shall terminate unless sooner re- 
 voked, and the Secretary of War is hereby authorized to revoke any or all 
 pei-mits granted by him by authority of this act, and nothing herein contained 
 shall be held to confirm, establish, or confer any rights heretofore claimed 
 or exercised in the diversion of water or the transmission of power. 
 
 Sec. G. That for accomplishing the purposes detailed in this act the sum of 
 fifty thousand dollars, or so much thereof as may be necessary, is hereby appro- 
 priated from anv moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated. 
 
 Sec 7. That the right to alter, amend, or repeal this act i.s hereby expressly 
 reserved.' 
 
 Approved, June 29, 1906. 
 
PRESERVATION OF NIAGARA FALLS. 561 
 
 House joint resolution 262, extending the operation of an act for the control and regu- 
 lation of the waters of Niagara River, for the preservation of Niagara Falls, and for 
 other purposes. 
 
 Whereas the provisions of the act entitled "An act for the control and regu- 
 lation of the waters of Niagara River, for the preservation of Niagara Falls, 
 and for other purposes," approved June twenty-ninth, nineteen hundred and six, 
 will expire by limitation on June twenty-ninth, nineteen hundred and nine; and 
 
 Whereas a date for the termination of the operation of said act was pro- 
 vided therein, but with a view to the more permanent settlement of the ques- 
 tions involved by a treaty with Great Britain, and by further legislation appro- 
 priate to the situation, and such treaty not having been negotiated, it is de- 
 sirable that the provisions of said act should be continued until such permanent 
 settlement can be made : Therefore, be it 
 
 Resolved, etc., That the provisions of the aforesaid act be, and they are 
 hereby, extended for two years from June twenty-ninth, nineteen hundred and 
 nine, being the date of the expiration of the operation of said act, save in so 
 far as any portion thereof may be found inapplicable or already complied with. 
 
 Approved, March 3, 1909. 
 
 Exhibit B. 
 
 tre.'vty series, no. 548 — treaty between the vnited states and great britain — 
 boundary waters between the united states and canada. 
 
 Signed at Washington January 11, 1909. 
 Ratification advised by the Senate March 3, 1909. 
 Ratified by the President April 1, 1910. 
 Ratified by Great Britain March 31, 1910. 
 Ratifications exchanged at Washington May 5, 1910. 
 Proclaimed May 13, 1910. 
 
 BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 
 
 A Proclamation. 
 
 Whereas a treaty between the United States of America and His Majesty the 
 King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British 
 dominions beyond the seas. Emperor of India, to prevent disputes regarding 
 the use of boundary waters and to settle all questions which are now pending 
 between the United States and the Dominion of Canada involving the rights, 
 obligations, or interests of either in relation to the other or to the inhabitants 
 of the other along their common frontier, and to malie provision for the adjust- 
 ment and settlement of all such questions as may hereafter arise, was concluded 
 and signed by their respective pleuipoteutiaries at Washington on the eleventh 
 day of January, one thousand nine hundred and nine, the original of which 
 treaty is. word for word, as follows: 
 
 The United States of America and His Majesty the King of the United King- 
 dom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British dominions beyond the 
 seas, Emperor of India, being equally desirous to prevent disputes regarding 
 the use of boundary waters and to settle all questions which are now pending 
 between the United States and the Dominion of Canada involving the rights, 
 obligations, or interests of either in relation to the other or to the inhabitants 
 of the other along their common frontier, and to make provision for the adjust- 
 ment and settlement of all such questions as may hereafter arise, have resolved 
 to conclude a treaty in furtherance of these ends, and for that purpose have 
 appointed as their respective plenipotentiaries: 
 
 The President of the United States of America, Elihu Root, Secretary of 
 State of the United States ; and 
 
 His Britannic Majesty, the Right Honorable James Bryce, O. M., his ambas- 
 sador extraordinary and plenipotentiary at Washington. 
 
 Who, after having communicated to one another their full powers, found 
 in good and due form, have agreed upon the following articles : 
 
562 PRESERVATION OF NIAGARA FALLS. 
 
 Preliminary Article. 
 
 For the purposes of this treaty boundary waters are defined as the waters 
 from main shore to main shore of the laljes and rivers and connecting water- 
 ways or the portions thereof, along which the international boundary between the 
 United States and the Dominion of Canada passes, including all bays, arms, 
 and inlets thereof, but not including tributary waters which in their natural 
 channels would flow into such lakes, rivers, and waterways, or waters flowing 
 from such lakes, rivers, and waterways, or the waters of rivers flowing across 
 the boundary. 
 
 Article I. 
 
 The high contracting parties agree that the navigation of all navigable bound- 
 ary waters shall forever continue free and open for the purposes of commerce 
 to the inhabitants and to the ships, vessels, and boats of both countries equally, 
 subject, however, to any laws and regulations of either country, within its own 
 territory, not inconsistent with such privilege of free navigation and applying 
 equally and without discrimination to the inhabitants, ships, vessels, and boats 
 of both countries. 
 
 It is further agreed that so long as this treaty shall remain in force this 
 same right of navigation shall extend to the waters of Lake Michigan and to all 
 canals connecting boundary waters and now existing or which may hereafter 
 be constructed on either side of the line. Either of the high contracting parties 
 may adopt rules and regulations governing the use of such canals within its 
 own territory and may charge tolls for the use thereof, but all such rules and 
 regulations and all tolls chai-ged shall apply alike to the subjects or citizens of 
 the high contracting parties and the ships, vessels, and boats of both of the 
 high contracting parties, and they shall be placed on terms of equality in the 
 use thereof. 
 
 Article II. 
 
 Each of the high contracting parties reserves to itself or to the several 
 State Governments on the one side and the Dominion or Provincial Governments 
 on the other, as the case may be, subject to any treaty provisions now existing 
 with respect thereto, the exclusive jurisdiction and control over the use and 
 diversion, whether temporary or permanent, of all waters on its own side of 
 the line which in their natural channels would flow across the boundary or 
 into boundary waters ; but it is agreed that any interference with or diver- 
 sion from their natural channel of such waters on either side of the boundary, 
 resulting in any injury on the other side of the boundary, shall give rise to the 
 same rights and entitle the injured parties to the same legal remedies as if 
 such injury took place in the country where such diversion or interference 
 occurs ; but this provision shall not apply to cases already existing or to cases 
 expressly covered by special agreement between the parties hereto. 
 
 It is understood, however, that neither of the high contracting parties intends 
 by the foregoing provision to surrender any right which it may have to object 
 to any interference with or diversions of waters on the other side of the 
 boundary the effect of which would be productive of material injury to the 
 navigation interests on its own side of the boundary. 
 
 Article III. 
 
 It is agreed that, in addition to the uses, obstructions, and diversions hereto- 
 fore permitted or hereafter provided for by special agreement between the parties 
 hereto, no further or other uses or obstructions or diversions, whether temporary 
 or 'permanent, of boundary waters on either side of the line, affecting the 
 natural level or flow of boundary waters on the other side of the line, shall 
 be made except by authority of the United States or the Dominion of Canada 
 within their respective jurisdictions and with the approval, as hereinafter 
 provided, of a joint commission, to be known as the International Joint Com- 
 mission. 
 
 The foregoing provisions are not intended to limit or interfere with the 
 existing rights of the Government of the United States on the one side and 
 the Government of the Dominion of Canada on the other, to undertake and 
 carry on governmental works in boundary waters for the deepening of chan- 
 
PEESERVATION OF NIAGARA FALLS. 563 
 
 nels, the coustructiou of breakwaters, the improveineut of harbors, aud other 
 governnieutal works for the benefit of commerce and navigation, provided that 
 such works are wholly on its own side of the line and do not materially affect 
 the level or flow of the boundary waters on the other, nor are such provisions 
 intended to interfere with the ordinary use of such waters for domestic and 
 sanitar,y purposes. 
 
 Article IV. 
 
 The high contracting parties agree that, except in cases provided for by 
 special agreement between them, they will not permit the construction or main- 
 tenance on their respective sides of the boundary of any remedial or protective 
 works or any dams or other obstructions in waters flowing from boundary 
 waters or in waters at a lower level than the boundary in rivers flowing 
 across the boundary, the effect of which is to raise the natural level of waters 
 on the other side of the boundary unless the construction or maintenance 
 thereof is approved by the aforesaid International Joint Commission. 
 
 It is further agreed that the waters herein defined as boundary wafers and 
 waters flowing across the boundary shall not be polluted on either side to the 
 injury of health or property on the other. 
 
 Article V. 
 
 The high contracting parties agree that it is expedient to limit the diver- 
 sion 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 aud to the extent hereinafter pro- 
 vided. 
 
 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 Onta- 
 rio, 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. 
 
 Article VI. 
 
 The high contracting parties agree that the St. Mary and ]\Iilk Rivers and 
 their tributaries (in the State of Montana and the Provinces of Alberta and 
 Saskatchewan) ai-e to be treated as one stream for the purposes of irrigation 
 and power, and the waters thereof shall be apportioned equally between the 
 two countries, but in making such equal apportionment, more than half may 
 be taken from one river and less than half from the other by either country 
 so as to afford a more beneficial use to each. It is further agreed that in the 
 division of such waters during the irrigation season, between the 1st of April 
 and 31st of October, inclusive, annually, the United States is entitled to a prior 
 appropriation of 500 cubic feet per second of the waters of the Milk River, or 
 so much of such amount as constitutes three-fourths of its natural flow, and 
 that Canada is entitled to a prior appropriation of 500 cubic feet per second of 
 the flow of St. Mary River, or so much of such amount as constitutes three- 
 fourths of its natural flow. 
 
 The channel of the Milk River in Canada may be used at the convenience 
 of the United States for the conveyance, while passing through Canadian terri- 
 tory, of waters diverted from the St. Mary River. The provisions of Article II 
 
564 PEESERVATION OF NIAGARA FALLS. 
 
 of this treaty shall apply to any injury resulting to property in Canada from 
 the conveyance of such waters through the Milk River. 
 
 The measurement and apportionment of the water to be used by each country 
 shall from time to time be made jointly by the properly constituted reclama- 
 tion officers of the United States and the properly constituted irrigation officers 
 of His Majesty under the direction of the International Joint Commission. 
 
 Article VII. 
 
 The high contracting parties agree to establish and maintain an International 
 Joint Commission of the United States and Canada composed of six commis- 
 sioners, three on the part of the United States appointed .by the President 
 thereof, and three on the part of the United Kingdom appointed by His Majesty 
 on the recommendation of the Governor in Council of the Dominion of Canada. 
 
 Article VIII. 
 
 This International Joint Commission shall have jurisdiction over and shall 
 pass upon all cases involving the use or obstruction or diversion of the waters 
 with respect to which, under Articles III and IV of this treaty, the approval of 
 this commission is required, and in passing upon such cases the commission shall 
 be governed by the following rules or principles which are adopted by the high 
 contracting parties for this purpose: 
 
 The high contracting parties shall have, each on its own side of the boundary, 
 equal and similar rights in the use of the waters hereinbefore defined as 
 boundary waters. 
 
 The following order of precedence shall be observed among the various uses 
 enumerated hereinafter for these waters, and no use shall be permitted which 
 tends materially to conflict with or restrain any other use which is given pref- 
 erence over it in this order of precedence : 
 
 (1) Uses for domestic and sanitary purposes; 
 
 (2) Uses for navigation, including the service of canals for the purposes of 
 navigation ; 
 
 (3) Uses for power and for irrigation purposes. 
 
 The foregoing provisions shall not apply to or disturb any existing uses of 
 boundary waters on either side of the boundary. 
 
 The requirement for an equal division may, in the discretion of the commission, 
 be suspended in cases of temporary diversions along boundary waters at points 
 where such equal division can not be made advantageously on account of local 
 conditions and where such diversion does not diminish elsewhere the amount 
 available for use on the other side. 
 
 The commission in its discretion may make its approval in any case condi- 
 tional upon the construction of remedial or protective works to compensate so 
 far as possible for the particular use or diversion proposed, and in such cases 
 may require that suitable and adequate provision, approved by the commission, 
 be made for the protection and indemnity against injury of any interests on 
 either side of the boundary. 
 
 In cases involving the elevation of the natural level of waters on either side 
 of the line as a result of the construction or maintenance on the other side of 
 remedial or protective works or dams or other obstructions in boundary waters 
 or in \^aters flowing therefrom or in waters below the boundary in rivers flowing 
 across the boundary, the commission shall require, as a condition of its approval 
 thereof, that suitable and adequate provision, approved by it, be made for the 
 protection and indemnity of all interests on the other side of the line which may 
 be injured thereby. 
 
 The majority of the commissioners shall have power to render a decision. In 
 case the commission is evenly divided upon any question or matter presented 
 to it for decision, separate reports shall be made by the commissioners on each 
 side to their own Government. The high contracting parties shall thereupon 
 endeavor to agree upon an adjustment of the question or matter of difference, 
 and if an agreement is reached between them it shall be reduced to writing 
 in the form of a protocol, and shall be communicated to the commissioners, who 
 shall take such further proceedings as may be necessary to carry out such 
 agreement. 
 
PRESERVATION OF NIAGARA FALLS. 565 
 
 Article IX. 
 
 The hisrh contracting parties fnrther agree that any other questions or mat- 
 ters of dilTerence arising between them involving tlie rights, obligations, or 
 interests of eitlier in relation to the other or to the inhabitants of tlie other, 
 aloim- tlu' common fv. ntier between tlie T'nit'^d States and the r)onuni()n of Cin- 
 adn. shall be referred from rime to time to the international joint commission 
 for examination and report, wlienever either the Government of the United 
 States or the Government of the Dominion of Canada sliall request that such 
 questions or matters of difference be so referred. 
 
 The international .ioi"t commission is authorized in each case so referred to 
 examine into and report upon the facts and circumstances of the particular 
 questions and matters referred, together with siich conclusions and recommenda- 
 tions as may be appropriate, sub.iect, however, to any restrictions or excep- 
 tions which may be imposed with respect thereto by the terms of the reference. 
 
 Such re]>orts of the commission shall not be regarded as decisions of the 
 questions or matters so submitted either on the facts or the law, and shall in 
 no way have the character of an arbitral award. 
 
 The connnission shall make a joint rep' rt to both Governments in all cases 
 in which all or a majority of the commissioners agree, and in case of disagree- 
 ment tlie minority may make a joint report to both Governments or separate 
 reiiorts to their respective Governments. 
 
 In case the commissirn is evenly divided upon any question or matter re- 
 ferred to it for report, separate reports shall be made by the commissioners on 
 each side to their own Government. 
 
 Article X. 
 
 Any questions or matters of difference arising between the high contracting 
 parties involving the rights, obligations, or intei'ests of the United States or of 
 the Dominion of Canada either in relation to each other or to their respective 
 inhabitants, may be referred for decision to the international joint commission 
 by the consent of the two iiarties, it being understood that on the part of the 
 United States any such action will be by and with the advice and consent of 
 the Senate, and on the part of His Majesty's Government with the consent of 
 ihe (iovernor General in Council. In each case so referred the said commis- 
 sion is authorized to examine into and report upon the facts and circumstances 
 of the particular questions and matters referred, together with such conclu- 
 sions and recommendations as may be appropriate, subject, however, to any 
 restrictions or exceptions which may be imposed with respect thereto by the 
 terms of the reference. 
 
 A majority of the said commission shall have power to render a decision or 
 finding upon any of the questions or matters so referred. 
 
 If the said commission is equally divided or otherwise unable to render a 
 decision or finding as to any questions or matters so referred, it shall be the 
 dut.A' of the commissioners to make a joint report to both Governments, or 
 separate reports to their respective Governments, showing the different con- 
 clusions arrived at with regard to the matters or questions so referred, which 
 questions or matters shall thereupon be referred for decision by the high con- 
 tracting parties to an umpire chosen in accordance with the procedure pre- 
 scribed in the fourth, fifth, and sixth paragraphs of Article XLV of The Hague 
 Convention for the pacific settlement of international disputes, dated October 
 18, 1907. Such umpire shall have power to render a final decision with respect 
 to those matters and questions so referred on which the commission failed 
 
 Article XI. 
 
 A duplicate original of all decisions rendered and joint reports made by the 
 commission shall be transmitted to and filed with the Secretary of State of the 
 United States and the Governor General of the Dominion of Canada, and to 
 them shall be addressed all communications of the commissions. 
 
 Article XII. 
 
 The international joint commission shall meet and organize at Washington 
 promptly after the members thereof are appointed, and when organized the 
 commission may fix such times and places for its meetings as may be necessary, 
 
 72684—11- 3 
 
566 PEESEBVATION OF NIAGARA FALLS. 
 
 subject at all times to special call or direction by the two (Joveniuieuts. Each 
 commissioner, upon the first joint meeting of the commission after his appoint- 
 ment, shall, before proceeding with the work of the commission, make and 
 subscribe a solemn declaration in writing that he will faithfully and impar- 
 tially i)orform the duties imposed upon him under this treaty, and such declara- 
 tion shall be entered on the records of the in-oceedings of the commission. 
 
 The United States and Canadian sections of the commission may each appoint 
 a secretary, and these shall act as joint secretaries of the commission at its 
 joint sessions, and the commission may employ engineers and clerical assistants 
 from time to time as it may deem advisable. The salaries and personal ex- 
 penses of the commission and of the secretaries shall be paid by their respective 
 Governments, and all reasonable and necessary joint expenses of the commission 
 incurred by it shall be paid in equal moieties by the high contracting parties. 
 
 The commission shall have power to administer oaths to witnesses, and to 
 take evidence on oath whenever deemed necessary in any proceeding, or inquiry, 
 or matter within its jurisdiction under this treaty, and all parties interested 
 therein shall be given convenient opportunity to be heard, and the high con- 
 tracting parties agree to adopt such legislation as may be appropriate and 
 necessary to give the commission the powers above mentioned on each side of 
 the boundary, and to provide for the issue of subpoenas and for compelling 
 the attendance of witnesses in proceedings before the commission. The commis- 
 sion may adopt such rules of procedure as shall be in accordance with justice 
 and equity and may make such examination in person and through agents or 
 employees as may be deemed advisable. 
 
 Article XIII. 
 
 In all cases where speci;;! agreements between the high contracting parties 
 hereto are referred to in the foregoing articles, such agreements are under- 
 stood and intended to include not only direct agreements between the high 
 contracting parties, but also any mutual arrangement between the United States 
 and the Dominion of Canada expressed by concurrent or reciprocal legislation 
 on the part of Congress and the Parliament of the Dominion. 
 
 Article XIY. 
 
 The present treaty shall be ratified by the President of the United States of 
 America, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate thereof, and by His 
 Britannic Majesty. The ratifications shall be exchanged at Washington as 
 soon as possible and the treaty shall take effect on the date of the exchange of 
 its ratifications. It shall remain in force for five years, dating from the day 
 of exchange of ratifications, and thereafter until terminated by twelve mouths' 
 written notice given by either liigh contracting party to the other. 
 
 In faith whereof the respective plenipotentiaries have signed this treaty in 
 duplicate and have hereunto affixed their seals. 
 
 Done at Washington the 11th day of January, in the year of our Lord one 
 thousand nine huiidred and nine. 
 
 (Signed) Elihxj Root. [seal.] 
 
 (Signed) James Bryce. [seal.] 
 
 And whereas the Senate of the United States by their resolution of March 
 3, 1909 (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring therein), did advise and 
 consent to the ratification of the said treaty with the following understanding 
 to wit : 
 
 Resolved further (as a part of this r at ifi cation). That the United States 
 approves this treaty with the understanding that nothing in this treaty shall be 
 construed as affecting or changing any existing territorial or riparian rights 
 in the water, or rights of the owners of lands under water, on either side of 
 the international boundary at the rapids of the St. Marys River at Sault Ste. 
 Marie, in the use of the waters flowing over such lands, subject to the require- 
 ments of navigation in boundary waters, and of navigation canals, and with- 
 out prejudice to the existing right of the United States and Canada, each to 
 use the waters of the St. Marys River within its own territory ; and further, 
 that nothing in this treaty shall be construed to interfere with the drainage of 
 wet, swamp, and overflowed lands into streams flowing into boundary waters, 
 and that this interpretation will be mentioned in the ratification of this treaty 
 as conveying the true meaning of the treaty, and will, in effect, form part of 
 the treaty. 
 
PRESERVATION OF NIAGARA PALLS. 567 
 
 And vvliereas the said luiderstaiiding has been accepted by tbe Government 
 of Great Britain, and tbe ratifications of tbe two Governments of tbe said 
 treaty were exchanged in tbe city of Washington, on tbe 5th day of May, one 
 thousand nine hundred and ten ; 
 
 Now, therefore, be it known that I, William Howard Taft, President of the 
 United States of America, have caused the said treaty and the said understand- 
 ing, as forming a part thereof, to be made public, to the end that the same and 
 every article and clause thereof may be observed and fulfilled with good faith 
 by the Tuited States and the citizens thereof. 
 
 In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the 
 United States to be affixed. 
 
 Done at the city of Washington this thirteenth day of May, in the year 
 of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and ten, and of the independence ot 
 the United States of America the one hundred and thirty-fourth. 
 
 LSEAL] W^M H^Taft 
 
 By the President : 
 P C Knox 
 
 Secretary of State. 
 
 Protocol of Exchange. 
 
 On proceeding to the exchange of the ratifications of the treaty signed at 
 Washington on January 11, 1909, between the United States and Great Britain, 
 relating to boundary waters and questions arising along the boundary between 
 the United States and the Dominion of Canada, the undersigned plenipotenti- 
 aries, duly authorized thereto by their respective Governments, hereby declare 
 that nothing in this treaty shall be construed as affecting, or changing, any 
 existing territorial or riparian rights in the water, or rights of the owners 
 of lands under water, on either side of the international boundary at the rapids 
 of the St. Marys River at Sault Ste. Marie, in the use of the waters flowing 
 over such lands, subject to tbe requirements of navigation in boundary waters 
 and of navigation canals, and without prejudice to the existing right of the 
 United States and Canada, each to use the waters of the St. Marys River, 
 within its own territory ; and further, that nothing in this treaty shall be con- 
 strued to interfere with the drainage of wet, swamp, and overflowed lands into 
 streams flowing into boundary waters, and also that this declaration shall be 
 deemed to have equal force and effect as the treaty itself and to form an 
 integral part thereto. 
 
 The exchange of ratifications then took place in the usual form. 
 
 In witness whereof they have signed the present protocol of exchange and 
 have affixed their seals thereto. 
 
 Done at Washington this 5th day of May, one thousand nine hundred and 
 ten. 
 
 Philander C Knox [seal] 
 James Bryce [seal] 
 
 Exhibit C. 
 
 the alexander bill. 
 
 [H. R. 26688, Sixty-first Congress, second session.] 
 
 A BILL To amend sections two, three, and five of an Act entitled "An Act for the control 
 and regulation of the waters of Niagara River, for the preservation of Niagara Falls, 
 and for others purposes," approved June twenty-ninth, nineteen hundred and six. 
 
 Be it enacted hy the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States 
 of America in Congress assembled, That sections two, three, and five of the Act 
 entitled "An Act for the control and regulation of the waters of Niagara River, 
 for the preservation of Niagara Falls, and for other purposes," approved June 
 twenty-ninth, nineteen hundred and six, are hereby amended to read as follows: 
 
 " Sec. 2. That the Secretary of War is hereby authorized to grant permits for 
 the diversion, within the State of New York, of the waters of Niagara River, 
 above the Falls of Niagara, for the creation of power to individuals, companies, 
 or corporations which are now actually producing power from the waters of the 
 said river or its tributaries, in the State of New York, or from the Erie Canal ; 
 
568 PRESERVATION OF NIAGARA FALLS. 
 
 but permits for diversiou shall be issued only to the individuals, companies, or 
 corporations as aforesaid, and not exceeding to all individuals, companies, or 
 corporations as aforesaid in tbe aggregate a daily diversiou at tbe rate of twenty 
 thousand cubic feet of water per second : Provided, That the provisions herein 
 permitting diversions are intended as a limitation on the authority of the Secre- 
 tary of War, and shall in nowise be construed as a direction to said Secretary 
 to issue permits, and the Secretary of War shall make regulations preventing 
 or limiting the diversion of water as herein stated. 
 
 " Sec. 3. That any person, company, or corporation diverting the waters from 
 the said Niagara River, above the Falls of Niagara, except as herein stated, 
 or violating any of the provisions of this Act, shall be deemed guilty of a 
 misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine not ex- 
 ceeding two thousand five hundred dollars nor less than five hundred dollars, 
 or by imprisonment (in the case of a natural person) not exceeding one year, 
 or by both such punishments, in the discretion of the court. And, further, 
 that the removal of any strvictures or parts of structures erected in violation 
 of this Act, or any construction incidental to or used for such diversion of 
 water as is herein prohibited, as well as any diversion of water in violation 
 hereof, may be enforced or enjoined at the suit of the United States by any 
 circuit court having jurisdiction in any district in which the same may be 
 located, and proper proceedings to this end may be instituted under the di- 
 rection of the Attorney-General of the United States." 
 
 " Sec. 5. That the provisions of this Act shall remain in force, until the 
 termination of the provisions of the treaty between the United States and 
 Great Britain, signed January eleventh, nineteen hundred and nine, providing 
 for the settlement of international differences between' the said countries, com- 
 monly known as the waterways treaty, and the Secretary of War is hereby 
 authorized to revoke any or all permits for the diversion of water granted by 
 him by authority of this Act, and nothing herein contained shall be held to 
 confirm, establish, or confer any rights hereto:^ore claimed or exercised in the 
 diversion of water : Provided, however. That, unless and until revoked ac- 
 cording to the terms thereof, all permits for the diversion of water heretofore 
 or hereafter granted by the Secretary of War shall continue to the grantees 
 thereof and their respective successors unless or until superseded by other 
 permits issued herein by the Secretary of War." 
 
 Sec. 2. That the right to alter, amend, or repeal this Act is hereby expressly 
 reserved. 
 
EXHIBIT D. 
 
 PHOTOGRAPHS OF NIAGARA FALLS TAKEN IN 187b'. 1885. 1888. 
 19(1(1. 19(15, AND 191(1. 
 
 72684—11 4 569 
 
THE AMERICAN FALLS, 1876. 
 
 THE AMERICAN FALLS, IS 
 
THE AMERICAN FALLS, 1900. 
 
 THE AMERICAN FALLS, 1910. 
 
.^ 
 
 THE AMERICAN AND CANADIAN FALLS 1885. 
 
 THE AMERICAN AND CANADIAN FALLS, 1905. 
 
THE CANADIAN FALLS, 1900. 
 
 THE CANADIAN FALLS, 1910. 
 
[Extracts from the Annual Reports of Chief of Engineers, U. S. Army, for 1000 and 1010.] 
 
 Annual Keport for 1909, by Brig. Gen. W. L. Marshall, Chief of Engineers, 
 U. S. Army (pp. 939-941). 
 
 THE CONTROL AND REGULATION OF THE WATERS OF NIAGARA RIVER AND THE PRESER- 
 VATION OF NIAGARA FALLS. 
 
 The approved projects of operations under the various allotments from the 
 appropriation made by the act of Congress of .June 29. 190(3. had for their pur- 
 pose the determination of the eifects of the diversions authorized by that act, 
 amounting to 15,600 cubic feet per second on the American side, and on the 
 Canadian side of water sufficient for the development and importation Into the 
 United States of 160,000 horsepower, uik)U the navigable capacity of the 
 Niagara River, on its integrity and proper volume as a boundary stream, on 
 the level of Lake Erie, and on the scenic grandeur of Niagara Falls. 
 
 The determination of these questions, so far as physically possible, involves 
 surveys and measurements, of levels, of volumes of discharges, of current 
 velocities and directions, and of depths over the crest of the falls. As these 
 are operations of a character similar to those ordinarily performed by the 
 Lake Survey, upon the recommendation of the Chief of Engineers, the Secre- 
 tary of War authorized the performance of the work involved therein by the 
 Lake Survey, and for this purpose successive allotments have been made, of 
 which two — one of .$5,000 and another of $3,000 — pertained to the fiscal years 
 1907 and 1908. At the beginning of the present fiscal year operations were in 
 progress upon the work covered by the project for the second allotment (that 
 of $3,000 above referred to). These operations had for their purpose the mak- 
 ing of such additional discharge measurements in the Niagara River as seemed 
 necessary in order to confirm or else to disprove the conclusion, derived from 
 the observations of 1907, that the increased diversions since 1898 had produced 
 no measurable effect upon the level of Lake Brie. This conclusion appenred so 
 anomalous as to require confirmation or explanation. From July 1 to August 
 7, 1908, 68 discharge measurements were made and the customary accessory 
 gauge and rating observations made. In addition, the erosible portion of the 
 discharge cross section, at the International Bridge, Buffalo, was sounded, and 
 it was found that spans 1. 3. and 4 had not changed since originally measui'ed 
 in 1899, but that in span 2 there had been an increase in mean depth of over 2 
 feet. This span, however, carries only 2^ per cent of the flow and the change 
 is therefore of minor consequence. 
 
 A shutdown of the plant of the Niagara Falls Power Co., covering a large 
 part of the period from 1.30 a. m., July 19, to 7.20 p. m. on August 2, 1908, 
 afforded an unusual opportunity for testing previous deductions concerning, 
 and for ascertaining directly, the effects produced by changes in the quantity 
 of water diverted in the Grass Island-Chippawa pool, and through the courtesy 
 of the company full advantage was taken of this opportunity. 
 
 Briefly summarized, the results of the operations of 1908 serve to prove 
 that while the increase in diversion since 1898 in the Chippawa-Grass Island 
 pool, amounting roughly to 7,000 cubic feet per second, has produced no 
 apparent effect upon the level of Lake Erie, this is probably due to the fact 
 that the lowering has been compensated by the construction during the same 
 period of the diversion works of the Ontario Power Co. below Chippawa. In 
 the absence of such compensation, the lowering due to the increased diver- 
 sion would have amounted to less than half an inch. This conclusion is 
 l)ased upon the discovered relation between the volume of the diversion in 
 Chippawa-Grass Island pool at the falls and the discharge of Lake Erie, which, 
 as derived from study of gauge relations and of the measurements during 
 rhe shutdown, shows that any change in the volume of this diversion is 
 accompanied by a change of about one-tenth the amount in the flow at the 
 International Bridge. 
 
 726S4— 11 5 571 
 
572 PRESERVATION OP NIAGARA FALLS. 
 
 In addition, the observations prove tliat the effect of increased diversion in 
 the above-named pool near the falls, by the American power companies, is 
 to rednce the height of tlie crest of the American Falls by 0.02 foot for each 
 10,000 cubic feet so diverted, and that the diversion of the full authorized 
 amomit — 15,100 cubic feet per second — will lower this crest 0.03 foot, or 
 about three-eighths of an inch. Based as it is upon the extensive observa- 
 tions subsequent to July 1, 190S. this determination serves to modify very 
 materially the result stated in the annual report for 1908, on page 894, the 
 latter being derived from a shutdown of a few hours only, during which the 
 change at Lhe crest of the American Falls due to the shutdown was coincident 
 with a rise in Lake Erie due to a southwesterly storm. 
 
 While the lowering, due to the diversions of the American power companies, 
 may not in itself be noticeable, it is increased to 0.053 foot =0.64 inch by the 
 present diversion of the Ontario Power Co. The combined lowering tends to 
 uncover shallow portions of the crest line of the American Falls. It is further 
 accompanied by greater, and consequently moi'e harmful, effects both in the 
 American rapids and at the easterly or Terrapin Point end of the Horseshoe 
 Fall. Terrapin Point is on the New York side of the bovmdary and, as depths 
 there are naturally slight, the loss of 2.5 inches in depth, which is the total due 
 to all existing diversions, is a matter of moment in its relation to continuity of 
 crest line. But it is on the Canadian side of the boundary that the impairment 
 of the falls is most serious. At the Canadian end of the Horseshoe Falls, which 
 is known to be deficient in depth, the diversion of 15.100 cubic feet per second 
 produces a lowering of about 4.8 inches, which is increased to 8.44 inches by the 
 present diversions of the Ontario Power Co., the Electrical Development Co., 
 the Canadian Niagara Power Co., and the International Railway Co., whose 
 total diversion is now estimated at 10,050 cubic feet per second. The losses at 
 Terrapin Point and at the west end of the Horseshoe are relatively great and, 
 as a whole, the falls have unquestionably been seriously injured by the diver- 
 sions already made. Additional diversions, now under way, will add to the 
 damage. 
 
 A full report upon the work under these allotments was submitted upon 
 November 30, 1908, and reference is invited to this for detailed statements of 
 ascertained gauge relations and of the effects of diversion upon the rapids, upon 
 the Horseshoe Falls, and upon the Niagara River. 
 
 As a result of the discharge measurements made in the intake canal of the 
 Niagara Falls Power Co. in 1907 the officer then in charge of the supervision of 
 the operations of the various power and transmission companies, under their 
 permits issued by the Secretary of War, imposed upon this company a limita- 
 tion to such diversion as might be necessary to generate not to exceed 65,000 
 electrical horsepower, this limitation being derived from a consideration of the 
 powerhouse load curves covering the time of the discharge measurements. 
 Comparison served to show that this company generated an electrical horse- 
 power for each 0.123 cubic foot of water diverted, and as the International 
 Paper Co. diverted directly from the canal of the iwwer company 700 cubic feet 
 per second there remained for the latter 7,900 cubic feet, corresponding, roundly, 
 to 65,000 electrical horsepower. The validity of the conversion coefficient for 
 forming switchboard readings into volume of water diverted, so far as it applies 
 to conditions actually existing at the time of the discharge measurements, can 
 not fairly be questioned, but as tlie two itowerhnuses belonging to this com- 
 pany differ in the details of their construction, with claimed higher mechanical 
 efficiency in the newer house, the officials of the company have asserted that 
 under certain entirely practicable conditions of operation the value of the con- 
 version coefficient will be found to be lower than the figures given. 
 
 As any unduly high value of this coefficient serves as an unwarranted restric- 
 tion upon the output of the company and causes a consequent financial loss, 
 upon April 3, 1909, a project was presented contemplating an exhaustive series 
 of tests with discharge meastu-ements under all reasonable probable conditions 
 of operation. Based upon this project, an allotment of $5,000 was made upon 
 April 15, 1909, and field operations were begun upon May 4, 1909, To June 30, 
 198 discharge measurements were made, covering 29 different distributions of 
 the load. Final results are not yet at hand, but it is certain that by restricting 
 the number of generators in operation to 16, with 6 or less in powerhouse No. 1, 
 the Niagara Falls Power Co. can generate 75,000 electrical horsepower and at 
 the same time not exceed a maximum diversion of 8.600 cubic feet per second. 
 
 The permits now in force for the diversion of water from the Niagara River 
 and for the transmission of electrical energy into the United States from Canada 
 are summarized on page 895 of the Report of the Chief of Engineers for 1908. 
 
PRESERVATION OP NIAGARA FALLS. 
 
 573 
 
 To August 14, 190S, the supervision of operations under these permits was 
 performed by Maj. C. W. Kutz, Corps of Engineers. Since that date the work 
 of supervision has been performed by the Lake Survey office. In discharging 
 this duty occasional inspections have been made at irregular intervals, and the 
 detailed results of such inspections have been duly reported to the Chief of 
 Engineers. All the companies concerned have, as disclosed by the inspections, 
 loyally observed the limitations of their corresponding permits. 
 
 Amount appropriated by act of June 29, 1906 $50, 000. 00 
 
 July 1, 1908, balance unexpended 40,069.40 
 
 June 30, 1909, amount expended during fiscal year 6, 592. 34 
 
 July 1, 1909, balance unexpended 33,477.06 
 
 ( See Appendix F F F 2. ) 
 
 Appendix F F F 2 of the Annual Report of the Chief of Encjineers for 1909, 
 Pages 2503-2.507. being Report by the Local Officer, Maj. Charles Keller, 
 Corps of Engineers. 
 
 preservation of NIAGARA FALLS AND SUPERVISION OVER POWER AND TRANSMISSION 
 
 companies. 
 
 At the beginning of the fiscal year, under an allotment of $3,000 from the 
 appropriation of the act of June 29, 1906, operations were in progress having 
 for their object the measurement of 60 additional discharges of the Niagara 
 River from the International Bridge, the purpose of making these measurements 
 being to get further information on the effect of diversions at Niagara Falls 
 upou the level of Lake Erie and further gauge observations to connect lake and 
 river heights. 
 
 Between July 1 and August 7, 1908, 68 discharge measurements were made 
 and small-type automatic gauges were operated at Austin Street (Buffalo), 
 Schlosser's Dock (Echota), Chippawa, Grass Island, Wingdam, Suspension 
 Bridge, Horseshoe Falls, New York, and Whirlpool, Ontario, of which those at 
 Austin Street, Schlosser's Dock, and Wingdam were removed late in August, 
 while the remainder were operated until interrupted by ice. 
 
 To complete the published data concerning the discharge of the Niagara River, 
 Table 5, following, gives in the previously adopted form detailed information 
 concerning all discharge measurements made at the International Bridge during 
 the seasons of 1907 and 1908, together with the corresponding meter ratings. 
 
 [U. S. Lake Survey.] 
 
 DISCHARGE OF NIAGARA RIVER. 
 
 Table 5. — Summary of discharge measurements, International Bridge Section, 1907-8. 
 
 
 
 
 
 Water surface 
 elevation. 
 
 Fall 
 
 Change in 
 
 level at 
 Lake Erie. 
 
 Wind. 
 
 
 Weighted 
 
 No. 
 
 Date. 
 
 Meter. 
 
 Rat- 
 ing. 
 
 Lake 
 Erie. 
 
 Bridge. 
 
 lake 
 
 to 
 
 bridge. 
 
 
 
 
 Dis- 
 charge. 
 
 mean in- 
 dex ve- 
 locity per 
 second. 
 
 Rise. 
 
 Fall. 
 
 Direc- 
 tion. 
 
 Veloc- 
 ity per 
 hour. 
 
 a 
 
 6 
 
 c 
 
 d 
 
 e 
 
 / 
 
 9 
 
 h i 
 
 fc 
 
 I 
 
 m 
 
 n 
 
 
 1907. 
 
 
 
 Feet. 
 
 Feet. 
 
 Feet. 
 
 Feet. Feet. 
 
 
 Miles. 
 
 Cv.feet. 
 
 Feet. 
 
 1 
 
 Oct. 21 
 
 2B 
 
 Nov. 
 
 572. 98 
 
 568. 03 
 
 4.95 
 
 0. 03 0. 14 
 
 
 
 224,170 
 
 6.60 
 
 2 
 
 22 
 
 2B 
 
 Nov. 
 
 573. 12 
 
 568. 18 
 
 4.94 
 
 0.14 0.00 
 
 SW. 
 
 25 
 
 225,960 
 
 6.63 
 
 3 
 
 22 
 
 4 A 
 
 Oct. 
 
 573. 54 
 
 568. 51 
 
 5.03 
 
 0. 12 0. 07 
 
 SW. 
 
 30 
 
 235,730 
 
 6.83 
 
 4 
 
 22 
 
 IB 
 
 Nov. 
 
 573. 38 
 
 568. 45 
 
 4.93 
 
 0.03 i 0.28 
 
 SW. 
 
 10 
 
 225,780 
 
 6.52 
 
 5 
 
 2.3 
 
 IB 
 
 Nov. 
 
 572. 42 
 
 .567.71 
 
 4.71 
 
 0.13 0.26 
 
 NW. 
 
 25 
 
 202, .520 
 
 6.06 
 
 6 
 
 23 
 
 IB 
 
 Nov. 
 
 572. 39 
 
 567. 64 
 
 4.75 
 
 0.29 I 0.01 
 
 NW. 
 
 30 
 
 202,980 
 
 6.06 
 
 7 
 
 23 
 
 2B 
 
 Nov. 
 
 572.61 
 
 567.75 
 
 4.86 
 
 0.21 0.02 
 
 NW. 
 
 30 
 
 211,260 
 
 6.29 
 
 8 
 
 24 
 
 1 B 
 
 Nov. 
 
 572. C6 
 
 567. 73 
 
 4.93 
 
 0.08 0.04 
 
 NW. 
 
 6 
 
 212,070 
 
 6.32 
 
 9 
 
 24 
 
 2B 
 
 Nov. 
 
 572.57 
 
 567. 72 
 
 4.85 
 
 0.00 0.16 
 
 NW. 
 
 6 
 
 215,110 
 
 6.43 
 
 10 
 
 24 
 
 2B 
 
 Nov. 
 
 572. 54 
 
 567.70 
 
 4.84 
 
 0.01 i 0.11 
 
 SW. 
 
 8 
 
 209,320 
 
 6.24 
 
 11 
 
 24 
 
 IB 
 
 Nov. 
 
 572. 41 
 
 567.57 
 
 4.84 
 
 0.16 ' 0.07 
 
 SW. 
 
 10 
 
 207,230 
 
 6.16 
 
 12 
 
 25 
 
 IB 
 
 Nov. 
 
 572. 57 
 
 567.99 
 
 4.58 
 
 0.00 
 
 0.38 
 
 NW. 
 
 15-30 
 
 205,690 
 
 6.07 
 
574 
 
 PRESERVATION OF NIAGARA FALLS. 
 
 Table o. — SiiiHindn/ of ilisvluirge mcasiircnicnts. I ntcniittionaJ Bridge Sectioii, 
 
 /.907'-S— Contimie.1. 
 
 
 
 
 
 Water surface 
 elevation. 
 
 Fall 
 
 Change in 
 
 level at 
 Lake Erie. 
 
 Wind. 
 
 
 Weighted 
 
 No. 
 
 Date. 
 
 Meter. 
 
 Rat- 
 ing. 
 
 
 
 lake 
 
 to 
 
 bridge. 
 
 
 
 
 Dis- 
 charge. 
 
 mean in- 
 dex ve- 
 locity per 
 second. 
 
 Lake 
 Erie. 
 
 Bridge. 
 
 Rise. 
 
 Fall. 
 
 Direc- 
 tion. 
 
 Veloc- 
 ity per 
 hour. 
 
 a 
 
 b 
 
 c 
 
 d 
 
 e 
 
 / 
 
 9 
 
 h 
 
 i 
 
 k 
 
 I 
 
 m 
 
 n 
 
 
 1907. 
 
 
 
 Feet. 
 
 Feet. 
 
 Feet. 
 
 Feet. 
 
 Feet. 
 
 
 Miles. 
 
 Cu.feet. 
 
 Feet. 
 
 13 
 
 Oct. 25 
 
 2B 
 
 Nov. 
 
 572. 35 
 
 567.64 
 
 4.71 
 
 0.12 
 
 0.01 
 
 NW. 
 
 20 
 
 198,910 
 
 5.95 
 
 14 
 
 25 
 
 2B 
 
 Nov. 
 
 572. 54 
 
 567. 76 
 
 4.78 
 
 0.31 
 
 0.00 
 
 NW. 
 
 20 
 
 207,110 
 
 6.17 
 
 15 
 
 26 
 
 2B 
 
 Nov. 
 
 572. 49 
 
 567. 62 
 
 4.87 
 
 0.02 
 
 0.07 
 
 NE. 
 
 6 
 
 205,500 
 
 6.16 
 
 16 
 
 26 
 
 1 B 
 
 Nov. 
 
 572. 48 
 
 567. 62 
 
 4.86 
 
 0.16 
 
 0.04 
 
 NE. 
 
 6 
 
 208,180 
 
 6.24 
 
 17 
 
 26 
 
 1 B 
 
 Nov. 
 
 572. 10 
 
 567. 45 
 
 4.65 
 
 0.06 
 
 0.14 
 
 
 
 
 
 196,. 500 
 
 5.90 
 
 18 
 
 26 
 
 2B 
 
 Nov. 
 
 571.94 
 
 567. 34 
 
 4.60 
 
 0.24 
 
 0.02 
 
 
 
 
 
 189,980 
 
 5.76 
 
 19 
 
 28 
 
 2B 
 
 Nov. 
 
 572. 48 
 
 567. 87 
 
 4.61 
 
 0.40 
 
 0. 03 
 
 NW. 
 
 35 
 
 208,310 
 
 6.19 
 
 20 
 
 28 
 
 1 B 
 
 Nov. 
 
 572. 13 
 
 567. 62 
 
 4.51 
 
 0.07 
 
 0.08 
 
 NW. 
 
 35 
 
 196,350 
 
 5.87 
 
 21 
 
 28 
 
 1 B 
 
 Nov. 
 
 572. 35 
 
 567. 66 
 
 4.09 
 
 0.16 
 
 0.02 
 
 NW. 
 
 35 
 
 204,340 
 
 6.10 
 
 22 
 
 28 
 
 1 B 
 
 Nov. 
 
 572. 63 
 
 567. 73 
 
 4.90 
 
 0.32 
 
 0.00 
 
 NW. 
 
 35 
 
 210,410 
 
 6.30 
 
 23 
 
 29 
 
 1 B 
 
 Nov. 
 
 572. 82 
 
 567. 90 
 
 4.92 
 
 0.09 
 
 0.04 
 
 NW. 
 
 10 
 
 213,770 
 
 6.33 
 
 24 
 
 29 
 
 2B 
 
 Nov. 
 
 572. 64 
 
 567. 88 
 
 4.76 
 
 0.03 
 
 0. 15 
 
 NW. 
 
 20 
 
 210,550 
 
 6.25 
 
 25 
 
 29 
 
 2 B 
 
 Nov. 
 
 572. 56 
 
 567. 82 
 
 4.74 
 
 0.05 
 
 0.29 
 
 NW. 
 
 25 
 
 212,130 
 
 6.30 
 
 26 
 
 30 
 
 2 B 
 
 Nov. 
 
 572. 44 
 
 5()7. 59 
 
 4.85 
 
 0.14 
 
 0.08 
 
 NE. 
 
 3 
 
 212,410 
 
 6.36 
 
 27 
 
 31 
 
 2 B 
 
 Nov. 
 
 572. 45 
 
 567. 61 
 
 4.84 
 
 0. 05 
 
 0.06 
 
 
 
 
 
 214,170 
 
 6.40 
 
 28 
 
 31 
 
 2 B 
 
 Nov. 
 
 572. 38 
 
 567.57 
 
 4.81 
 
 0.02 
 
 0.10 
 
 NW. 
 
 2 
 
 208,610 
 
 6.27 
 
 29 
 
 31 
 
 2 B 
 
 Nov. 
 
 572. 19 
 
 567. 52 
 
 4.67 
 
 0.08 
 
 0.16 
 
 SE. 
 
 3 
 
 201,710 
 
 6.05 
 
 30 
 
 Nov. 1 
 
 41) A 
 
 Nov. 
 
 572. 32 
 
 567. 55 
 
 4.77 
 
 0.13 
 
 0.10 
 
 SE. 
 
 10 
 
 208,380 
 
 6.24 
 
 31 
 
 1 
 
 40 A 
 
 Nov. 
 
 572. 40 
 
 567. 59 
 
 4.81 
 
 0.15 
 
 0.07 
 
 SE. 
 
 10 
 
 211,130 
 
 6.32 
 
 32 
 
 1 
 
 46 A 
 
 Nov. 
 
 572. 39 
 
 567. 62 
 
 4.77 
 
 0.04 
 
 0.09 
 
 S. 
 
 2 
 
 210,280 
 
 6.28 
 
 33 
 
 1 
 
 46 A 
 
 Nov. 
 
 572.38 
 
 567. 60 
 
 4.78 
 
 0.05 
 
 0.10 
 
 s. 
 
 2 
 
 209,800 
 
 6.27 
 
 34 
 
 2 
 
 46 A 
 
 Nov. 
 
 572. 80 
 
 567. 76 
 
 5.04 
 
 0.33 
 
 0.07 
 
 s. 
 
 40 
 
 219,. 390 
 
 6.52 
 
 35 
 
 2 
 
 46 A 
 
 Nov. 
 
 572. 84 
 
 567.85 
 
 4.99 
 
 0.07 
 
 0.32 
 
 s. 
 
 40 
 
 216,640 
 
 6.43 
 
 36 
 
 2 
 
 40 A 
 
 Nov. 
 
 572. 55 
 
 567. 75 
 
 4.80 
 
 0.02 
 
 0.28 
 
 s. 
 
 40 
 
 207,850 
 
 6. 18 
 
 37 
 
 4 
 
 46 A 
 
 Nov. 
 
 573.00 
 
 507. 99 
 
 5.01 
 
 0.09 
 
 0.01 
 
 W. 
 
 4 
 
 224, 770 
 
 6.64 
 
 38 
 
 4 
 
 46 A 
 
 Nov. 
 
 572.87 
 
 5(>S. 02 
 
 4.85 
 
 0.24 
 
 0.20 
 
 w. 
 
 4 
 
 213,420 
 
 6.28 
 
 39 
 
 4 
 
 46 A 
 
 Nov. 
 
 572. 81 
 
 568. 02 
 
 4.79 
 
 0.15 
 
 0.02 
 
 w. 
 
 7 
 
 213,270 
 
 6.28 
 
 40 
 
 4 
 1908. 
 
 46 A 
 
 Nov. 
 
 572. 93 
 
 567. 99 
 
 4.94 
 
 0.07 
 
 0.23 
 
 sw. 
 
 10 
 
 218,930 
 
 6.46 
 
 41 
 
 June 26 
 
 14 B 
 
 1 
 
 573. 39 
 
 508. 43 
 
 4.96 
 
 0.00 
 
 0.26 
 
 SE. 
 
 4 
 
 228,840 
 
 6.66 
 
 42 
 
 27 
 
 14 B 
 
 1 
 
 573.28 
 
 568.11 
 
 5.17 
 
 0.12 
 
 0.01 
 
 SW. 
 
 3 
 
 219,020 
 
 6.44 
 
 43 
 
 27 
 
 1 B 
 
 1 
 
 573. 49 
 
 568.26 
 
 5.23 
 
 0.07 
 
 0.03 
 
 w. 
 
 5 
 
 229, 810 
 
 6.72 
 
 44 
 
 27 
 
 1 B 
 
 1 
 
 .'■)73. 48 
 
 568. 28 
 
 5.20 
 
 0.08 
 
 0.10 
 
 w. 
 
 5 
 
 227,870 
 
 6.65 
 
 45 
 
 29 
 
 1 B 
 
 1 
 
 573. .32 
 
 £68.42 
 
 4.90 
 
 0.39 
 
 0.15 
 
 w. 
 
 8 
 
 225.490 
 
 6.54 
 
 46 
 
 29 
 
 1 B 
 
 1 
 
 573. 39 
 
 568. 42 
 
 4.97 
 
 0.10 
 
 0.22 
 
 sw. 
 
 7-20 
 
 227, 140 
 
 6.58 
 
 47 
 
 30 
 
 14 B 
 
 4 
 
 .573. 71 
 
 568. 60 
 
 5.11 
 
 0.15 
 
 0.17 
 
 sw. 
 
 8 
 
 235,710 
 
 6.80 
 
 48 
 
 30 
 
 14 B 
 
 4 
 
 573. 60 
 
 568. 55 
 
 5.05 
 
 0.08 
 
 0.37 
 
 sw. 
 
 7-12 
 
 232,560 
 
 6.73 
 
 49 
 
 30 
 
 1 B 
 
 1 
 
 573. 40 
 
 508. 41 
 
 4.99 
 
 0.16 
 
 0.24 
 
 sw. 
 
 15 
 
 221,. 580 
 
 6.42 
 
 50 
 
 30 
 
 1 B 
 
 1 
 
 573. 28 
 
 568. .33 
 
 4. 95 
 
 0.14 
 
 0.15 
 
 sw. 
 
 10 
 
 220, 080 
 
 6. 40 
 
 51 
 
 July 2 
 
 14 B 
 
 4 
 
 572. 92 
 
 568. 07 
 
 4.85 
 
 0.07 
 
 0.16 
 
 E. 
 
 5 
 
 213,680 
 
 6.29 
 
 52 
 
 2 
 
 14 B 
 
 4 
 
 572. 91 
 
 568. 03 
 
 4.88 
 
 0.18 
 
 0.07 
 
 NE. 
 
 6-25 
 
 218, 730 
 
 6.44 
 
 53 
 
 2 
 
 1 B 
 
 1 
 
 572. 85 
 
 567. 96 
 
 4.89 
 
 0.06 
 
 0.14 
 
 NE. 
 
 15 
 
 208,420 
 
 6.15 
 
 54 
 
 2 
 
 1 B 
 
 1 
 
 572. 77 
 
 567. 89 
 
 4.88 
 
 0.03 
 
 0.17 
 
 NE. 
 
 20-7 
 
 211,690 
 
 6.27 
 
 55 
 
 6 
 
 14 B 
 
 4 
 
 573.52 
 
 568. 48 
 
 5.04 
 
 0.06 
 
 0.09 
 
 SW. 
 
 15 
 
 230,870 
 
 6.69 
 
 56 
 
 6 
 
 14 B 
 
 4 
 
 573. 34 
 
 568. 38 
 
 4.96 
 
 0.00 
 
 0.27 
 
 sw. 
 
 12 
 
 220.430 
 
 6.43 
 
 57 
 
 6 
 
 1 B 
 
 1 
 
 573. 23 
 
 568. 33 
 
 4.90 
 
 0.03 
 
 0.17 
 
 sw. 
 
 10 
 
 220,690 
 
 6.43 
 
 58 
 
 6 
 
 1 B 
 
 1 
 
 573. 07 
 
 568. 22 
 
 4. ,85 
 
 0.21 
 
 0.12 
 
 sw. 
 
 15 
 
 217.460 
 
 6.36 
 
 59 
 
 7 
 
 14 B 
 
 4 
 
 573. 54 
 
 568.39 
 
 5.15 
 
 0.12 
 
 0.03 
 
 sw. 
 
 18 
 
 222,220 
 
 6.45 
 
 60 
 
 7 
 
 14 B 
 
 4 
 
 573.54 
 
 568. 34 
 
 5.20 
 
 0.08 
 
 0.19 
 
 sw. 
 
 18 
 
 230,460 
 
 6.72 
 
 61 
 
 8 
 
 15 B 
 
 1 
 
 573. 80 
 
 568. 55 
 
 5.25 
 
 0.51 
 
 0.11 
 
 NW. 
 
 38 
 
 239,400 
 
 6.93 
 
 62 
 
 8 
 
 15 B 
 
 1 
 
 573. 46 
 
 568. 46 
 
 5.00 
 
 0.00 
 
 0. 66 
 
 NW. 
 
 38 
 
 224,420 
 
 6.49 
 
 63 
 
 8 
 
 15 B 
 
 1 
 
 573. 63 
 
 568. 45 
 
 5.18 
 
 0.12 
 
 0.07 
 
 NW. 
 
 10 
 
 231,140 
 
 6.70 
 
 64 
 
 8 
 
 15 B 
 
 1 
 
 573. 54 
 
 568. 48 
 
 5.06 
 
 0.20 
 
 0.13 
 
 SW. 
 
 2&-40 
 
 229,560 
 
 6.64 
 
 65 
 
 10 
 
 1 B 
 
 1 
 
 573. 30 
 
 568. 07 
 
 5.23 
 
 0.04 
 
 0. 01) 
 
 SW. 
 
 6 
 
 223,4.30 
 
 6.56 
 
 66 
 
 10 
 
 1 B 
 
 1 
 
 573. 27 
 
 568. 07 
 
 5.20 
 
 0.09 
 
 0.07 
 
 sw. 
 
 6 
 
 220. 580 
 
 6.48 
 
 67 
 
 10 
 
 15 B 
 
 1 
 
 573. 30 
 
 568. 15 
 
 5.15 
 
 0.01 
 
 0.04 
 
 SW. 
 
 6 
 
 223,020 
 
 6. 56 
 
 68 
 
 10 
 
 15 B 
 
 3 
 
 573. 23 
 
 568. 15 
 
 5.08 
 
 0.05 
 
 0.09 
 
 sw. 
 
 6 
 
 222,790 
 
 6.53 
 
 69 
 
 16 
 
 1 B 
 
 8 
 
 573. .33 
 
 568. 29 
 
 5.04 
 
 0.23 
 
 0.02 
 
 sw. 
 
 5-15 
 
 229,260 
 
 6.69 
 
 70 
 
 16 
 
 1 B 
 
 8 
 
 573. 39 
 
 568. 36 
 
 5.03 
 
 0.02 
 
 0.11 
 
 sw. 
 
 8 
 
 231,790 
 
 6.75 
 
 71 
 
 18 
 
 1 B 
 
 8 
 
 573. 69 
 
 568. 81 
 
 4.88 
 
 0.00 
 
 0.93 
 
 sw. 
 
 10 
 
 234,550 
 
 6.71 
 
 72 
 
 18 
 
 1 B 
 
 8 
 
 573. 21 
 
 568. 52 
 
 4.69 
 
 0.09 
 
 0.31 
 
 sw. 
 
 10 
 
 221,570 
 
 6.39 
 
 73 
 
 20 
 
 14 B 
 
 7 
 
 573. 24 
 
 568. 41 
 
 4.83 
 
 0.00 
 
 0.21 
 
 NW. 
 
 4 
 
 223,200 
 
 6.49 
 
 74 
 
 20 
 
 14 B 
 
 7 
 
 573. 10 
 
 568. 33 
 
 4.77 
 
 0. 06 
 
 0.13 
 
 sw. 
 
 8 
 
 222,510 
 
 6.50 
 
 75 
 
 20 
 
 1 B 
 
 8 
 
 573.00 
 
 568. 17 
 
 4.83 
 
 0.09 
 
 0.02 
 
 NW. 
 
 3 
 
 222,350 
 
 6.53 
 
 76 
 
 21 
 
 14 B 
 
 7 
 
 573. 16 
 
 568. 35 
 
 4.81 
 
 0.26 
 
 0.43 
 
 
 
 
 
 216,430 
 
 6.32 
 
 77 
 
 21 
 
 14 B 
 
 7 
 
 572. 91 
 
 568.18 
 
 4.73 
 
 0.14 
 
 0.21 
 
 NW. 
 
 10 
 
 213,930 
 
 6.28 
 
PRESERVATION OF NIAGARA FALLS. 
 
 575 
 
 Table 5. — Nummary of 
 
 discharge mcdHinentcnls. Intcrn<iti()ii(i1 liridgc Section, 
 JiWl-S — Continnetl. 
 
 
 
 
 
 Water surface 
 elevation. 
 
 Fall 
 
 Change in 
 
 level at 
 I/ake Erie. 
 
 Wind. 
 
 
 Weighted 
 
 No. 
 
 Date. 
 
 Meter. 
 
 Rat- 
 ing. 
 
 
 lake 
 
 to 
 
 bridge. 
 
 
 
 
 
 Dis- 
 charge. 
 
 mean in- 
 dex ve- 
 locity per 
 second. 
 
 Lake 
 Erie. 
 
 Bridge. 
 
 Rise. 
 
 Fall. 
 
 Direc- 
 tion. 
 
 Veloc- 
 ity per 
 liour. 
 
 a 
 
 6 
 
 c 
 
 d 
 
 e 
 
 / 
 
 9 
 
 h 
 
 i 
 
 k 
 
 I 
 
 m 
 
 n 
 
 
 1908. 
 
 
 
 Feet. 
 
 Feet. 
 
 Feet. 
 
 Feet. 
 
 Feet. 
 
 
 Miles. 
 
 Cu.feet. 
 
 Feet. 
 
 78 
 
 JulV 21 
 
 14 B 
 
 7 
 
 573. 08 
 
 568.28 
 
 4.80 
 
 0.21 
 
 0.03 
 
 NW. 
 
 10 
 
 215,250 
 
 6.30 
 
 79 
 
 22 
 
 14 B 
 
 7 
 
 573.38 
 
 568.43 
 
 4.95 
 
 0.11 
 
 0.07 
 
 sw. 
 
 5 
 
 228,230 
 
 6.63 
 
 80 
 
 22 
 
 IB 
 
 8 
 
 573. 42 
 
 568.48 
 
 4.94 
 
 0.10 
 
 0.02 
 
 sw. 
 
 12 
 
 231,430 
 
 6.70 
 
 81 
 
 22 
 
 1 B 
 
 8 
 
 573. 29 
 
 568.46 
 
 4.83 
 
 0.05 
 
 0.10 
 
 sw. 
 
 10 
 
 224,070 
 
 6.51 
 
 82 
 
 22 
 
 1 B 
 
 8 
 
 573. 20 
 
 568.39 
 
 4.81 
 
 0.04 
 
 0.09 
 
 NW. 
 
 5 
 
 226,800 
 
 6.60 
 
 83 
 
 23 
 
 1 B 
 
 8 
 
 573.00 
 
 568.20 
 
 4.80 
 
 0.16 
 
 0.08 
 
 NW. 
 
 5 
 
 221,660 
 
 6.49 
 
 84 
 
 23 
 
 1 B 
 
 8 
 
 573.08 
 
 568.24 
 
 4.84 
 
 0.06 
 
 0.11 
 
 NW. 
 
 5 
 
 222,010 
 
 6.48 
 
 85 
 
 23 
 
 1 B 
 
 8 
 
 573. 12 
 
 568.29 
 
 4.83 
 
 0.13 
 
 0.14 
 
 NE. 
 
 8 
 
 222,830 
 
 6.51 
 
 86 
 
 23 
 
 IB 
 
 8 
 
 573.09 
 
 568.28 
 
 4.81 
 
 0.06 
 
 0.06 
 
 NE. 
 
 8 
 
 222, 630 
 
 6.52 
 
 87 
 
 24 
 
 14 B 
 
 7 
 
 572.84 
 
 568. 06 
 
 4.78 
 
 0.06 
 
 0.03 
 
 NE. 
 
 5 
 
 213,170 
 
 6.27 
 
 88 
 
 24 
 
 14 B 
 
 7 
 
 572. 87 
 
 568.07 
 
 4.80 
 
 0.14 
 
 0.12 
 
 NE. 
 
 5 
 
 208,640 
 
 6.26 
 
 89 
 
 24 
 
 IB 
 
 8 
 
 572. 85 
 
 568. 15 
 
 4.70 
 
 0.15 
 
 0.65 
 
 NE. 
 
 12 
 
 216,190 
 
 6.35 
 
 90 
 
 24 
 
 1 B 
 
 8 
 
 572.72 
 
 568. 00 
 
 4.72 
 
 0.18 
 
 0.25 
 
 NE. 
 
 10 
 
 213,040 
 
 6.27 
 
 .91 
 
 25 
 
 14 B 
 
 7 
 
 573. 20 
 
 568. 34 
 
 4.86 
 
 0.14 
 
 0.12 
 
 NE. 
 
 4 
 
 220, 510 
 
 6.42 
 
 92 
 
 25 
 
 14 B 
 
 7 
 
 573.00 
 
 568. 28 
 
 4.72 
 
 0.15 
 
 0.19 
 
 NE 
 
 6 
 
 218,340 
 
 6.40 
 
 93 
 
 25 
 
 1 B 
 
 8 
 
 573. 08 
 
 508. 24 
 
 4.84 
 
 0.13 
 
 0.18 
 
 NE. 
 
 10 
 
 225, 090 
 
 6.59 
 
 94 
 
 27 
 
 1 B 
 
 8 
 
 573. 02 
 
 508. 27 
 
 4.75 
 
 0.05 
 
 0.01 
 
 
 
 
 
 221,310 
 
 6.45 
 
 95 
 
 27 
 
 1 B 
 
 8 
 
 573. 00 
 
 568. 24 
 
 4.70 
 
 0.05 
 
 0.02 
 
 NE. 
 
 . 3 
 
 216, 840 
 
 6.44 
 
 96 
 
 29 
 
 14 B 
 
 7 
 
 573. 10 
 
 568. 29 
 
 4.81 
 
 0.06 
 
 0.05 
 
 SW. 
 
 5 
 
 221, 160 
 
 6.45 
 
 97 
 
 29 
 
 14 B 
 
 7 
 
 573. 18 
 
 568. 32 
 
 4. 86 
 
 0.06 
 
 0.04 
 
 SW. 
 
 3 
 
 226, 820 
 
 6.60 
 
 98 
 
 30 
 
 14 B 
 
 7 
 
 573. 21 
 
 568. 36 
 
 4.85 
 
 0.02 
 
 0.07 
 
 sw. 
 
 8 
 
 225,000 
 
 6.54 
 
 99 
 
 30 
 
 14 B 
 
 7 
 
 573. 15 
 
 568. 32 
 
 4.83 
 
 0.09 
 
 0.09 
 
 sw. 
 
 8 
 
 221,910 
 
 6.45 
 
 100 
 
 30 
 
 1 B 
 
 8 
 
 573. 15 
 
 508. 32 
 
 4.83 
 
 0.10 
 
 0.03 
 
 sw. 
 
 10 
 
 226,880 
 
 6.60 
 
 101 
 
 31 
 
 1 B 
 
 8 
 
 573. 20 
 
 508. 36 
 
 4.84 
 
 0.03 
 
 0.06 
 
 sw. 
 
 8 
 
 228, 010 
 
 6.62 
 
 102 
 
 31 
 
 1 B 
 
 8 
 
 573. 20 
 
 5fi8. 39 
 
 4.81 
 
 0.00 
 
 0.03 
 
 NW. 
 
 15 
 
 222, 950 
 
 6.50 
 
 103 
 
 31 
 
 1 B 
 
 8 
 
 573.08 
 
 568. 34 
 
 4.74 
 
 0.04 
 
 0.08 
 
 NW. 
 
 15 
 
 223,430 
 
 6.53 
 
 104 
 
 31 
 
 IB 
 
 8 
 
 573. 11 
 
 568. 33 
 
 4.78 
 
 0.12 
 
 0.00 
 
 NW. 
 
 15 
 
 226, 560 
 
 6.57 
 
 105 
 
 Aug. 1 
 
 14 B 
 
 7 
 
 572. 67 
 
 567. 77 
 
 4.90 
 
 0.26 
 
 0.01 
 
 NE. 
 
 10 
 
 212,960 
 
 6.33 
 
 106 
 
 1 
 
 14 B 
 
 7 
 
 573.07 
 
 567. 97 
 
 5.10 
 
 0.22 
 
 0.01 
 
 NE. 
 
 18 
 
 221,30)0 
 
 6.54 
 
 107 
 
 4 
 
 14 B 
 
 7 
 
 573. 18 
 
 568. 39 
 
 4.79 
 
 0.04 
 
 0.28 
 
 SW. 
 
 15 
 
 220, 510 
 
 6.42 
 
 108 
 
 4 
 
 14 B 
 
 7 
 
 573. 18 
 
 568.36 
 
 4.82 
 
 0.09 
 
 0.07 
 
 SW. 
 
 15-8 
 
 218, 830 
 
 6.36 
 
 109 
 
 4 
 
 1 B 
 
 8 
 
 573. 06 
 
 568. 30 
 
 4.76 
 
 0.17 
 
 0.03 
 
 sw. 
 
 15 
 
 227,220 
 
 6.62 
 
 110 
 
 4 
 
 IB 
 
 8 
 
 572.98 
 
 568.27 
 
 4.71 
 
 0.14 
 
 0.05 
 
 SW. 
 
 8 
 
 225, 310 
 
 6.57 
 
 111 
 
 5 
 
 IB 
 
 8 
 
 573. 39 
 
 568. 41 
 
 4.98 
 
 0.64 
 
 0.06 
 
 sw. 
 
 8 
 
 234,870 
 
 6.80 
 
 112 
 
 5 
 
 1 B 
 
 8 
 
 573. 61 
 
 568. 55 
 
 5.06 
 
 0.02 
 
 0.48 
 
 sw. 
 
 8 
 
 237, 390 
 
 6.88 
 
 113 
 
 5 
 
 14 B 
 
 7 
 
 573. 77 
 
 5f«. 72 
 
 5.05 
 
 0.25 
 
 0.80 
 
 sw. 
 
 35 
 
 234,810 
 
 6.76 
 
 114 
 
 5 
 
 14 B 
 
 7 
 
 573. 88 
 
 568. 86 
 
 5.02 
 
 0..30 
 
 0.47 
 
 sw. 
 
 20 
 
 238, 690 
 
 6.84 
 
 115 
 
 6 
 
 14 B 
 
 7 
 
 573. 56 
 
 508. 70 
 
 4.86 
 
 0.06 
 
 0.02 
 
 sw. 
 
 50 
 
 233, 170 
 
 6.68 
 
 116 
 
 6 
 
 14 B 
 
 7 
 
 573. 27 
 
 568. 56 
 
 4.71 
 
 0.00 
 
 0.69 
 
 sw. 
 
 20 
 
 225,090 
 
 6.52 
 
 117 
 
 6 
 
 1 B 
 
 8 
 
 572. 94 
 
 568. 26 
 
 4.67 
 
 0.29 
 
 0.03 
 
 sw. 
 
 30 
 
 213. 980 
 
 6.23 
 
 118 
 
 6 
 
 1 B 
 
 8 
 
 573. 03 
 
 568. 26 
 
 4.77 
 
 0.05 
 
 0.26 
 
 sw. 
 
 20 
 
 217,330 
 
 6.35 
 
 119 
 
 Oct. 16 
 
 15 B 
 
 10 
 
 572. 13 
 
 567. 37 
 
 5.24 
 
 0.08 
 
 0.02 
 
 sw. 
 
 18 
 
 199, 580 
 
 6.01 
 
 120 
 
 17 
 
 1 B 
 
 10 
 
 572. 22 
 
 567. 39 
 
 4.83 
 
 0.01 
 
 0.20 
 
 s. 
 
 15 
 
 203, 420 
 
 6.14 
 
 121 
 
 17 
 
 14 B 
 
 10 
 
 572. 18 
 
 567. 37 
 
 4.81 
 
 0.11 
 
 0.03 
 
 s. 
 
 12 
 
 191,270 
 
 5.80 
 
 122 
 
 17 
 
 14 B 
 
 10 
 
 572. 17 
 
 567. 34 
 
 4.83 t 0.06 
 
 0.12 
 
 sw. 
 
 10 
 
 196, 230 
 
 5.88 
 
 123 
 
 21 
 
 1 B 
 
 10 
 
 571. 76 
 
 567. 03 
 
 4.73 1 0.04 
 
 0.10 
 
 SE. 
 
 10 
 
 199,700 
 
 6.12 
 
 124 
 
 21 
 
 1 B 
 
 10 
 
 571. 89 
 
 567. 08 
 
 4.81 ! 0.17 
 
 0.12 
 
 SE. 
 
 10 
 
 197.930 
 
 6.06 
 
 125 
 
 22 
 
 15 B 
 
 10 
 
 572. 10 
 
 507. 23 
 
 4.87 1 0.24 
 
 0.02 
 
 SE. 
 
 6 
 
 200,860 
 
 6.10 
 
 126 
 
 22 
 
 15 B 
 
 10 
 
 572. 20 
 
 567.31 
 
 4.89 0.01 
 
 0.01 
 
 s. 
 
 18 
 
 200,290 
 
 6.06 
 
 On July 16 a portion of the field party was transferred to Niagara Falls to 
 make preliminary jirrangements for measuring the changes in the regimen of 
 the river, which might result from the complete closure of the two power houses 
 of the Niagara Falls Power Co., notice of which had kindly been furnished, 
 betimes, by the officials of this company, who further stated that the closure 
 would cover a period of a week or more. A box-and-bottle gauge was at once 
 I)laced at the crest of the American falls and it was read at r>-nuuute inter- 
 vals, day and night, to August (!. Another gauge of the same type was placed 
 just above the intake of the Ontario Power Co. to determine any material 
 changes which might take place in the diversion of that company. 
 
 The plant of the Niagara Falls Power Co. was closed at 1.30 a. m. July 10. and 
 so remained until 12.30 a. m. July 28, when power house No. 1 resumed oper- 
 ations. On August 1 at 11.30 p. m. this power house was again closed to permit 
 
576 PRESERVATION OF NIAGARA FALLS. 
 
 removal of a bulkhead in the discharge tunnel, and on August 2 at 7.20 p. m. 
 water was again admitted to the turbines of both power houses. The power 
 houses were thus closed completely for a period of practically 10 days. 
 
 During this period all automatic gauges were inspected at frequent intervals, 
 usually twice daily. Staff gauges at Port Day. at the head of the intake canal 
 of the Niagara Falls Power Co. and at the forebay of the Ontario Power Co., 
 were read once or twice each day. The water consumed by both the Niagara 
 Falls Power Co. and the Niagara Falls Hydraulic Power and Manufacturing Co. 
 was carefully determined by daily meter measurements. During the critical 
 times of opening or closing the power houses of the Niagara Falls Power Co. a 
 meter was run continuously in the intake canal of that company and the flow 
 through the canal of the Niagara Falls Hydraulic Power and Manufacturing 
 Co. was carefully watched ; the automatic gauges were inspected at more fre- 
 quent intervals; the gauge in the forebay of the Ontario Power Co. was read 
 continuously at 10-minute intervals ; and the record of the automatic gauges 
 at Buffalo Breakwater and at Austin Street were reenforced by readings at 
 10-minute intervals on both reference gauges. 
 
 During this time the measurements of the flow of the river from the Inter- 
 national Bridge were continued whenever the services of enough men could be 
 spared from the other work. 
 
 On November 30, 1908, a very complete report, covering the results of the 
 working seasons of 1907. 1908, and earlier work, and the conclusions therefrom, 
 was submitted to the Chief of Engineers, and no attempt will be made to repeat 
 here the subject matter of that repoi't. A brief statement of results and con- 
 clusions will be found in the summary, pages 939-941. 
 
 Based upon the discharge measurements made in 1907, the officer then in 
 charge of the supervision of operations of power and transmission companies 
 under their War Department permits had imposed upon the Niagara Falls 
 Power Co. a limitation to the production of 65,000 horsepower, measured at the 
 switchboard. This limitation was based upon the relation between the actually 
 measured discharges and concurrent switchboard readings. 
 
 Perhaps in the belief that the maximum capacity of its discharge tunnel was 
 8,600 cubic feet per second, the power company had during the progress of the 
 measurements of the volume of its diversion made, so far as known, no special 
 effort to restrict the volume of diversion by operating a minimum number of 
 generators at maximum efficiency, and the above limitation seemed to have 
 been in the nature of a surprise. 
 
 Early in the spring of 1909 the company made representations to the effect 
 that a limitation to 6.^), 000 electrical horseitower did not in fact, at all times and 
 under all operating conditions, permit a diversion of 8,600 cubic feet per second, 
 and requested that a series of discharge measurements be made in its intake 
 canal, during the course of which operating conditions might be observed and 
 varied under a prearranged program designed to establish the mechanical 
 efficiency of various combinations. 
 
 As an unreasonably low limitation causes a considerable money loss to the 
 company, on April 3, 1900, a project was presented covering an exhaustive 
 series of tests under all reasonable conditions of operations. Based upon this 
 project, an allotment of $5,000 was made on April 15, and field operations have 
 been in progress since May 4, 1909. 
 
 Automatic gauges were installed at Grass Island and Sus])ension Bridge on 
 May 10, at the Whirlpool on May 13, and just below the intake of the Inter- 
 national Railway Co. on May 21. 
 
 Since May 10 discharge measurements of the flow in the intake canal of the 
 Niagara Falls Power Co. have been in progress, and on May 29 the first test 
 load was placed on the generators. Good progress has been made upon the 
 items of the agreed program, and at the close of the j'ear the observations and 
 reductions had been very nearly completed. 
 
 Final results are not yet available, but it is already known that with 6 or 
 less generators in operation in power house No. 1 and not more than 16 in both 
 power houses, 75,000 electrical horsepower may be generated without exceeding 
 the authorized diversion. 
 
 During the year the operations of the power and transmission companies at 
 Niagara Falls, under their respective permits from the Secretary of War, have 
 been supervised, up to August 14, 1908, by Maj. C. W. Kutz, Corps of Engineers; 
 since that date by this office. 
 
 At irregular intervals inspections of the various power houses have been 
 made, and at such times switchboard registrations and other kindred data have 
 
PEESERVATION OF NIAGARA FALLS. 577 
 
 been investigated. During the fiscal year inspections were made on September 
 19 and December 10, 1908, and February 25. April 27-28, May 30- June 1, and 
 June 15, 1909. An inspection was also made July 2. 1909. 
 
 Up to tlie present time, so far as disclosetl by the inspections, all the com- 
 panies have faithfully observed the conditions of their respective permits, and 
 it is due them to say that they have courteously cooperated in making super- 
 vision easy and effective. 
 
 Annual Report for 1910, by Brig. Gen. W. H. Bixby. Chief of Engineebs, 
 U. S. Aemy (pp. 1050-1053). 
 
 PRESERVATION OF NIAGARA FALLS. 
 
 The approved projects of operations under the various allotments from the 
 appropriation made by the act of Congress of June 29. 190G, had for their pur- 
 pose the determination of the effects of the diversions authorized by that act, 
 amounting to 15,600 cubic feet per second on the American side, and on the 
 Canadian side of water sufficient for the development and importation into the 
 United States of 160,000 horsepower, upon the navigable capacity of the 
 Niagara Eiver, on its integrity and proper volume as a boundary stream, on 
 the level of Lake Erie, and on the scenic grandeur of Niagara Falls. 
 
 The determination of these questions, so far as physically possible, involves 
 surveys and measurements of levels, of volumes of discharges, of current ve- 
 locities and directions, and of depths over the crest of the falls. As these are 
 operations of a character similar to those ordinarily performed by the Lake 
 Survey, upon the recommendation of the Chief of Engineers, the Secretary of 
 War authorized the performance of the work involved therein by the Lake Sur- 
 vey, and for this purpose successive allotments have been made, of which two — • 
 one of $5,000 and another of $3,000— pertained to the fiscal years 1907, 1908, 
 and 1909. 
 
 At the beginning of the present fiscal year operations were in progress upon 
 the work covered by the project approved by the Secretary of War on April 15, 
 1909, for an allotment of $5,000. These operations comprised a remeasurement 
 of the flow in the canal of the Niagara Falls Hydraulic Power & Manufacturing 
 Co. ; measurement of the diversion in the canal of the Niagara Falls Power Co. 
 for different combinations of generator units in the two power houses and for 
 graded values of gate openings or loads; and further investigations of slope 
 relations in the Niagara River. 
 
 The increased power being generated by the Niagara Falls Hydraulic Power 
 & Manufacturing Co. indicated an increased diversion of water and, as the en- 
 largement of its canal had rendej'ed the previous measurements inapplicable, 
 new observations were found necessary to an intelligent supervision of the 
 operations of this company. Consequently, 43 measurements of flow through 
 its canal were made during July, 1909, by the party employed under the above- 
 named project. The maximum result obtained showed a diversion of slightly 
 less than 4,000 cubic feet per second. The mean of the observations indicated 
 that the company generated in its own power houses an electrical horsepower 
 for each 0.0602 cubic foot of water used by its plant. In addition, a maximum 
 of about 700 cubic feet per second was passing over the spillways or to tenant 
 companies. At the time the measurements were made several of the mills tak- 
 ing water from the canal or power from the company were shut down. It is 
 possible that had the measurements been made at some other time during the 
 year the maximum of flow would have been larger, reaching possibly 4,500 cubic 
 feet of water per second. Under its present permit the company is allowed to 
 divert a maximum of 6,500 cubic feet per second. 
 
 As a result of the discharge measurements that were made in the canal of 
 the Niagara Falls Power Co. in 1907 the company was limited by the officer 
 then in charge of the supervision of the operations of the various power and 
 transmission companies under their permits issued by the Secretary of War 
 to the diversion of water necessary to generate 65.000 electrical horsepower. 
 This limitation was derived by using the ratio between water consumed and 
 power generated at the time of the observations, and is believed to represent 
 with all fairness to the company its full rights under its permit according to 
 the operating conditions then in practice. However, the officials of the company 
 later represented that, owing to the variance in type of generator units in their 
 two power houses, it was entirely practicable to operate with a higher mechani- 
 
578 PRESERVATION OF NIAGARA FALLS. 
 
 cal effieieiK-y. and requestenl opiiortiuilty to cooperate with the Government iu 
 observinfT the rehition bet\A-een the volume of water diverted and the power 
 generated under various practicable operating conditions. As any unduly low 
 limitation of its output deprives the company of financial returns to which it 
 is entitled the project presented on April 3. 1009, and ajiproved April 15, pro- 
 posed to conduct an exhaustive series of observations to determine the mechani- 
 cal etliciency of the units of the company's two power houses while operating 
 under different gate oi»enings or degrees of hsad. The field operations, which 
 were based uiion this project, were well advancetl at the beginning of the fiscal 
 year, 210 discharge observations having been made covering 20 different operat- 
 ing conditions. The observations were continued until August 3, 1909, when 
 336 measurements of flow in the canal, covering .OS test conditions, had been 
 completetl. A detailed report of this work was submitted upon September 21, 
 1909. Briefly summarizes!, these observations indicate a wide range of efficieucy 
 for variations in the opening of the turbine valves as well as between the 
 generator units of the two power houses. This efficiency is determined as only 
 34 per cent in power house No. 1 at 50 per cent valve opening, while it is 72 
 per cent in power house No. 2 at full gate. It is found that, operating with the 
 most economical combination of units and valve openings, the company can 
 generate about 82,000 electrical horsepower without exceeding its allowable 
 limit of S.GOO cul)ic feet of water per second, which amount includes 725 cubic 
 feet per second being used in the mills of the International Paper Co. 
 From the efliciency curves of the two power houses a table was deduced em- 
 bodying with as great detail as seemed desirable the practicable operating 
 combinations and their corresponding switchboard limitations, so that the total 
 diversion of water should in no case exceed the limit prescribed by law. Since 
 September 2, 1900, the Niagara Falls Power Co. has operated under the limits 
 prescribed by this table (Table 10, report submitted September 21, 1909), in 
 which IS of the 10 combinations enumerated allow a switchboard output in 
 excess of 65,000 electrical horsepower formerly prescribed. 
 
 The investigation of slopes in the Niagara River has been continued through- 
 out the year, except for the winter months, when ice conditions prevented. 
 
 Since August 14, 1908, the supervision of the operations of the power com- 
 panies at Niagara Falls under their permits — which are briefly summarized 
 on page 895 of the report of the Chief of Engineers for 1908 — has been per- 
 formed by the Lake Survey office. After the departure of the hydraulic party 
 the duty was performed by an employee stationed at Niagara Falls, N. Y., who 
 has made inspections at frequent and irregular intervals, the detailed results 
 of such inspections being placed on file in the Lake Survey office and a summary 
 duly reported to the Chief of Engineers. In so far as the inspections disclose, 
 all of the companies concerned have loyally observed the limitations of their 
 corresponding permits. 
 
 To defray the expenses arising in connection with the supervision of opera- 
 tions of power and transmission companies and to make further investigaticms 
 of slope relations in the Niagara River and related subjects, the Secretary of 
 War on June 17, 1910, allotted the additional sum of $1,000 from the appro- 
 priation of June 29, 1906. 
 
 Amount appropriated by act of June 29, 1906 .$50, 00{). 00 
 
 July 1. 1909, I)alance unexpended 33,477.06 
 
 June .30. 1910, amount expended during fiscal year 5,966.47 
 
 July 1. 1910, balance unexpended 27. 510. 59 
 
 July 1, 1910, outstanding liabilities 78. 87 
 
 July 1, 1010. l)alance available 27,431.72 
 
 (See Api)endix G G (i 2.) 
 
 Appendix G G G 2 of tiik Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers for 1910, 
 Pages 2722-2725, being Report by the Local Officer, Maj. C. S. Ricnfi, 
 Corps of Engineers. 
 
 preservation of NIAGARA FALLS. 
 
 At the beginning of the fiscal year oiteratlons were in progress under an 
 allotment of $5,000, approved on April 15, 1909, by the Secretary of War, for 
 the purpose of measuring the flow through the canal of the Niagara Falls 
 
PRESERVATION OF NIAGARA FALLS. 579 
 
 Hydraulic Power «& Manufacturing Co., rating tlie turbiue>^ of tlie Niagara Falls 
 Power Co., and continuing the study of slopes in the Niagara River. 
 
 The field party, under the charge of Junior Engineer Sherman Moore, was 
 engaged on July 1, 1909, in measuring the consumption of water by the plant 
 of the Niagara Falls Power Co. This company cooperated with the Government 
 in conducting a series of tests of the efficiency of its generator units under 
 different operating conditions. This work was suspended temporarily on July 
 18, and the partj' was engaged from then until July 30 uix)n hydraulic measure- 
 jnents in the canal of the Niagara Falls Plydraulic Power & Manufacturing Co. 
 
 The value of the data obtained by the observations in the canal of the latter 
 company in 1907, and included in the report of this office, dated November 30, 
 
 1908, had been nullified by the enlargement of the canal and by changes in the 
 company's power house. Obviously, an efficient supervision of the operations 
 of the company under its permit necessitates a knowledge of the approximate 
 amount of water being used. To this end the party made a series of 43 deter- 
 minations of flow through the canal. The section used was at the lower (north- 
 ern) edge of the Main Street Bridge. While not entirely satisfactory, on 
 account of the proximity of the forebay, the conditions here were better than 
 at either of the sections used in 1907. Two complete sets of soundings were 
 made, giving areas differing by only 0.7 per cent. The section was divided into 
 five iianels of 20 feet each, and vertical velocity curves determined in the center 
 of each panel and also 2} feet from each wall. The observatictns of discharge 
 were grouped by days and compared with the generated power of the company's 
 turbines, showing a mean diversion of 0.0602 cubic foot per second for each 
 electrical horsepower developed. Owing to the unfavorable conditions in the 
 canal, due to an uneven bottom and to the dredging and blasting which were in 
 progress, the results obtained may be 3 or 4 per cent in error. As the present 
 diversion of the company was found to be well within the limit of its permit, no 
 greater accuracy was attempted. Changes in the canal will necessitate further 
 measurements when the water consumption of the Niagara Falls Hydraulic 
 Power & Mnnfacturing Co. approaches its limit under the law. The maximum 
 flow observed in July, 1909, was 3,966 cubic feet per second. At this time sev- 
 eral of the mills taking water from the canal or power from the company were 
 shut down. It is probable that measurements taken at other times during the 
 year would have shown a maximum consumption of about 4,500 cubic feet per 
 second. Under its permit the company is allowed to divert 6,500 cubic feet per 
 second from the upper Niagara River. 
 
 The hydraulic work on the canal of the Niagara Falls Power Co. was re- 
 sumed on July 31 and continued until August 3. 1909. The field party, after a 
 few daj's' work on the preparation of its report, was then detaile<i to duties 
 under the appropriation for Survey of Northern and Northwestern Lakes, and 
 was so occupied during the remainder of the year. 
 
 The operations of the party during its work upon the canal of the Niagara 
 Falls Power Co. were conducted with a view of determining the relation of 
 diversion and the production of power as measured at the switchboard for all 
 reasonable conditions of operation of the company's plant. 
 
 Based upon the discharge measurements made in 1907. the officer then in 
 charge of the supervision of operations of power and transmission companies 
 under their War Department permits had imposed upon the Niagara Falls 
 Power Co. a limitation to the production of 65,000 horsepower, measured at the 
 switchboard. This limitation was based upon the relation between the actually 
 measured discharges and concurrent switchboard readings, and is believed to 
 have represented with all fairness to the company its full rights under its per- 
 mit according to the operating conditions then in practice. 
 
 Early in the spring of 1909 the company made representations to the effect 
 that a limitation to 65,000 electrical horsepower did not. in fact, at all times 
 and imder all operating conditions permit a diversion of 8,6(X) cubic feet per 
 second, and requested that a series of discharge measurements be made in its 
 intake canal, during the course of which operating conditions might be observed 
 and varied under a jirearrnng'Hl program designed to establish the mechanical 
 efficiency of various combinations. 
 
 A project for the expenditure of an allotment if .$5,000 from the appropria- 
 tion of June 29, 1906. which included a j)roposed rating of the turbines of the 
 Niagara Falls Power Co., was approved by the Secretary of War on April 1.5, 
 
 1909. as stated abnve, and the field party began its operations on May 4. 1909. 
 At the beginning of the fiscal year 219 discharge obsiMvations had been made, 
 and at the conclusion of the field work, on August 3. .336 measurements of flow 
 in the canal of the Niagara Falls I'ower Co. had been completed. These meas- 
 
580 
 
 PRESERVATION OF NIAGARA FALLS. 
 
 iirements covered a series of 53 test conditions of operation of the company's 
 plant according to a prearranged program. A detailed report of this work was 
 submitted to the Chief of Engineers on September 21, 1909. The results of the 
 observations indicate a wide range of efficiency for different openings of the 
 turbine valves and also for the generator units of the two power houses. For 
 instance, the efficiencies determined for the units in power house No. 1 at 50 
 per cent and 100 per cent valve openings are 34 per cent and 58 per cent, re- 
 spectively, while the efficiencies in power house No. 2 for the same openings of 
 the gates are 52 per cent and 72 ]ier cent. It is found that the company, oper- 
 ating with the most economical combination of units and valve openings, can 
 generate about 82,000 electrical horsepower, as measured at the switcliboard, 
 without exceeding its allowable limit of 8,600 cubic feet per second diversion. 
 
 A series of 276 measurements of flow was made in the canal of the Interna- 
 tional Paper Co.. a tenant of the Niagara Falls Power Co., during the progress 
 of the work on the main canal. From the results it appears that the maximum 
 capacity of the paper mill is 725 cubic feet per second. As it is not practicable 
 to maintain a constant supervision of the operations of the paper company, its 
 maximum capacity is deducted from the allowable diversion of the Niagara 
 Falls Power Co. and the remainder, 7,875 cubic feet per second, is used as a 
 basis for regulating the operations of the latter company. This is apparently 
 satisfactory to all concerned. 
 
 From the efficiency curves of the two power houses of the Niagara Falls Power 
 Co. the following table was deduced, embodying with as great detail as seemed 
 desirable the practicable operating combinations, and their corresponding 
 switchboard limitations, so that the total diversion of water should in no case 
 exceed the limit prescribed by law. 
 
 U. S. LAKE SURVEY PRESERVATION OF NIAGARA FALLS. 
 
 Operating limitations of Maffara Falls Poivcr Co., effective after September 2, 
 
 1909. 
 
 Units 
 
 in operation. 
 
 Permissible output. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Valve in No. 
 
 1 no less than 
 
 Valve in No. 
 
 1 no less than 
 
 
 
 
 50 per 
 
 cent. 
 
 75 per 
 
 cent. 
 
 
 
 
 
 Approxi- 
 
 
 Approxi- 
 
 Total. 
 
 No. 1. 
 
 No. 2. 
 
 Kilowatts. 
 
 mate horse- 
 power. 
 
 Kilowatts. 
 
 mate horse- 
 power. 
 
 15 
 
 4 
 
 11 
 
 Unlimited. 
 
 Unlimited. 
 
 X'nlimited. 
 
 Unlimited. 
 
 15 
 
 5 
 
 10 
 
 Unlimited. 
 
 Unlimited. 
 
 Unlimited. 
 
 Unlimited. 
 
 15 
 
 6 
 
 9 
 
 Unlimited. 
 
 Unlimited. 
 
 Unlimited. 
 
 Unlimited. 
 
 15 
 
 7 
 
 8 
 
 Unlimited. 
 
 Unlimited. 
 
 Unlimited. 
 
 Unlimited. 
 
 15 
 
 8 
 
 7 
 
 Unlimited. 
 
 Unlimited. 
 
 Unlimited. 
 
 Unlimited. 
 
 16 
 
 .5 
 
 11 
 
 60,400 
 
 80, 900 
 
 ()0,400 
 
 80,900 
 
 16 
 
 
 
 10 
 
 58, 600 
 
 78, 500 
 
 58, 600 
 
 78,500 
 
 10 
 
 7 
 
 9 
 
 56, 900 
 
 76,200 
 
 56. 900 
 
 76, 200 
 
 16 
 
 8 
 
 8 
 
 55, 100 
 
 73,800 
 
 55,300 
 
 74,100 
 
 16 
 
 9 
 
 7 
 
 52,600 
 
 70, 500 
 
 53, (iOO 
 
 71,800 
 
 17 
 
 6 
 
 11 
 
 55, 200 
 
 74,000 
 
 55, 200 
 
 74,000 
 
 17 
 
 7 
 
 10 
 
 53,400 
 
 71,600 
 
 53,400 
 
 71,600 
 
 17 
 
 8 
 
 9 
 
 52, 100 
 
 69, 800 
 
 52, 100 
 
 69,800 
 
 17 
 
 9 
 
 8 
 
 49,600 
 
 66, 500 
 
 50, 600 
 
 67.800 
 
 18 
 
 7 
 
 11 
 
 49,900 
 
 66, 900 
 
 51,500 
 
 69.000 
 
 18 
 
 8 
 
 10 
 
 48,200 
 
 64, 600 
 
 50, 200 
 
 67, 300 
 
 18 
 
 9 
 
 9 
 
 46, 100 
 
 61,800 
 
 49, 000 
 
 65,700 
 
 19 
 
 8 
 
 11 
 
 45, 400 
 
 60, 800 
 
 49,000 
 
 (55,700 
 
 19 
 
 9 
 
 10 
 
 44.000 
 
 59. 000 
 
 48,100 
 
 64,500 
 
 Operat 
 
 ion not 1 
 
 imited. 
 
 40, 000 k 
 
 lowatts. 
 
 ,53, 600 ho 
 
 ■sepower. 
 
 Note.— This schedule is based on 7,875 cubic feet per second of water available in plant of Niagara 
 Falls Power Co. and 725 cubic feet per second in the plant of the International Paper Co. 
 
 Since September 2, 1909, the company has operated under the limits pre- 
 scribed by this table. It will be noted that for 18 of the 19 combinations 
 enumerated the switchboard output exceeds 65,000 electrical horsepower, form- 
 erly prescribed. 
 
PRESERVATION OF NIAGARA FALLS. 581 
 
 Automatic gauges were maintained throughout the season of 1909 at Grass 
 Island, Horseshoe Falls above the Cataract, Suspension Bridge, and Whirlpool. 
 They were discontinued during the winter on account of ice conditions. In the 
 early spring of 1910 the gauge formerly at Grass Island was installed at Chip- 
 pawa and the other three gauges were replaced in their former positions. 
 
 Since August 14, 1908, the supervision of the operations of the power and 
 transmission companies at Niagara Falls, -under their permits, which are 
 briefly summarized on page 895 of the Report of the Chief of Engineers for 
 1908, has been performed by the Lake Survey Office. After the departure of 
 the hydraulic party in August, 1909, this duty was performed by an employee 
 stationed at Niagara Falls, N. Y., who has made inspections at frequent and 
 irregular intervals, the detailed results of such inspections being placed on file 
 in the Lake Survey Office and a summary duly reported to the Chief of En- 
 gineers. In so far as the inspections disclose, all of the companies concerned 
 have loyally observed the limitations of their corresponding permits. 
 
 To defray the expenses arising in connection with the supervision of opera- 
 tions of power and transmission companies, and to make further investigations 
 of slope relations in the Niagara River and related subjects, the Secretary of 
 War, on June 17, 1910, allotted the additional sum of .$1,000 from the appropria- 
 tion of June 29, 1906. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. MORRIS COHN, JR., OF NIAGARA FAILS, N. Y., 
 REPRESENTING THE HYDRAULIC POWER CO., OF NIAGARA 
 FALLS. 
 
 The Chairman. Mr. Cohn. we have time, if you would like to be 
 heard now. 
 
 Mr. Cohn. I think I may fairly take just a moment to state 
 clearly what the situation is there at Niagara Falls respecting power 
 companies. There are tAvo power companies on the American side — - 
 the Hydraulic PoAver Co. and the Niagara Falls Power Co. They are 
 interested in that part of this act wliich relates to the diversion of 
 water upon the American side. There are three poAver companies on 
 the Canadian side — the Ontario PoAver Co., the Canadian Niagara 
 PoAver Co., and the Electrical Development Co., so called. They 
 deA'elop poAver on the Canadian side and are only interested in the 
 question of importation of power into the United States. None of 
 these companies has an}" relation to any other company, except that 
 the Niagara Falls PoAver Co. and Canadian Niagara PoAver Co. are 
 allied. So that there are four different, distinct poAver interests 
 one of AA'hich is interested both in deA^elopment on the American and 
 Canadian sides and in importation; tAvo of Avhich, on the Canadian 
 side, are only interested in importation ; and the company Avhich I 
 represent is interested only in diversion on the American side of the 
 river. Gen, Greene Avas asked a question here as to the feature 
 of the bill Avhich limited the diversion of Avater to those Avho are 
 noAv engaged in the development of jioAver. and he responded, after 
 some hesitation, in ansAver to an incjuiry, that he thought that that 
 should be eliminated. He has no interest, as I take it. in the propo- 
 sition, w^hile Ave have, and his remarks in that respect must not be 
 taken as an indication on the part of anybody interested directly in 
 a poAver-development proposition on the American side that this 
 limitation for diversion to the existing comj^anies is distasteful to 
 them. 
 
 Gen. Greene. I Avas particularly called upon to ansAvcr that ques- 
 tion as a disinterested party. 
 
582 PRESERVATION OF NIAGARA FAI^LS. 
 
 Mr. Coiix. Yes; I understand. I did not ^vant any misunder- 
 standing on that point — that is, that no power company represented 
 here — the power company I represent, at least — that no power com- 
 pany up to date which is interested in diversion on the American 
 side has expressed up to this time its willingness to have that pro- 
 vision eliminated. 
 
 Mr. Madden. You express opposition to the elimination? 
 
 Mr. CoHN. I think that my statement that follows will show that 
 it will be entireh' unjust and unfair to us to eliminate that clause 
 and I think I can make that plain. 
 
 Mr. Madden. Give us your reasons now. 
 
 Mr. CoHN. The Hydraulic Power Co., which I represent, is the 
 oldest developer of power at Niagara Falls. The commencement of 
 its canal construction was nearly 60 years ago, and it and its prede- 
 cessors have been engaged in this work of development ever since. 
 It started in in developing power by virtue of its riparian rights as 
 the owner of land adjoining the ri^'er. All of the land from the 
 intake of its canal at Port Day to the Falls of Niagara was originally 
 owned by Augustus Porter and his heirs, and they sold the land to 
 the predecessor of this company, which built its canal from a point 
 called Port Day, about a mile above the Falls, to a point below the 
 Falls, and commenced development as long ago as 1857. All of these 
 lands were then owned by a single individual, or family, from the 
 brink of the Prills to the intake of this canal. At common law this 
 company and its predecessors had the right to take all the water it 
 could for the purposes for which it took them, so long as it restored 
 them to the river, and it has that right against everybody in the world 
 excepting a lower riparian owner. That was its common-law right, 
 Avhich has been adjudicated by the courts of the State of New York. 
 
 This power development gradually proceeded by the Hydraulic 
 Power Co. and its j)redecessors, until about 1890 the second develop- 
 ment, that of the Niagara Falls Power Co., began on the American 
 side. That development began higher up. and that company, I think, 
 fairly recognized from the start that the rights of the company 
 that began this higher development were subordinate to the rights 
 of the Hydraulic Power Co.. if any question ever arose between 
 them, as was quite improbable. Meantime, the State of New York 
 had taken all the lands from the intake of our canal to the brink 
 of the Falls for a public park, and the question arose whether the 
 State of New York, as a lower riparian owner, could not ques- 
 tion the taking of water by the Hydraulic Co. So that in 1896 
 the State of New York, being the lower riparian owner, made a 
 grant, by act of the legishiture, to the Hydraulic Power Co., allow- 
 ing it to take from the river as nuich water as could be drawn through 
 a canal 100 feet in width and 14 feet in depth. That has been com- 
 puted to be 9,500 cubic feet per second. The International Water- 
 ways Commission, which was appointed under the act of 1902, made 
 a report in 1906, which preceded the Burton bill, and it recommended 
 in terms that the Hydraulic Power Co. should have 9.500 cubic feet 
 of water per second. That report is as follows: 
 
 They recommended that a bill should be enacted whereby the Sec- 
 retary of War should be authorized— 
 
 to grant permits for the diversion of 28,500 cubic feet per second, and no more, 
 from tlie waters natnrallv trihntarv to Xiasara Falls, distributed as follows. 
 
PRESERVATION OF NIAGARA FALLS. 583 
 
 Now, mind you, the Intcniational Waterways Commission in terms 
 recommended the specific companies, by name, in the bill, and — 
 
 that the Secretary of War be authorized to grant permits for the diversion of 
 28,500 cubic feet per second, and no more, from the waters naturally tributary 
 to Niagara Falls, distributed as follows: 
 
 Cubic feet. 
 
 Niagara Falls Hydraulic Power & Manufacturing Co 9, 500 
 
 Niagara Falls Power Co 8, 600 
 
 Erie Canal or its tenants 400 
 
 Chicago Drainage Canal , 10,000 
 
 That w^as just preceding the enactment of the Burton bill. The 
 report is dated March 24, 1906, and the Burton bill was introduced 
 immediately afterwards. Then they recognized our rights in this 
 report, and so stated. Under the common law we did have the un- 
 limited right to take water restricted only by the State of New York, 
 as the lower riparian owner, to 9,500 cubic feet per second. 
 
 Mr. Young. You claim your right to use this water as being 
 riparian owners ? 
 
 Mr, CoHN. Absolutely. 
 
 Mr. Young. You deny that the State of New York, except as a 
 loAver riparian owner, has any right in those waters by virtue of its 
 sovereignty ? 
 
 Mr. CoHN. It has no right to the Avaters ; that has been adjudicated, 
 that we have our rights by virtue of riparian ownership. The State 
 of New York undoubtedly had the oAvnership of the bed of the river 
 to the center of the stream; that has also been adjudicated. The only 
 interest the Congress had in the matter at all, as it seems to me, was, 
 in the first instance, because it was an international boundary stream; 
 and, in the second instance, because it was a navigable river, and that 
 was recognized by the Burton bill. 
 
 Mr. Moon. And that is a supreme and paramount interest in everv- 
 thing? 
 
 Mr. CoHN. Yes; but it is not title. It is control for certain pur- 
 poses. 
 
 Mr. Moon. That gives the Federal Government undisputed powei* 
 over this proposition. 
 
 Mr. CoHN. For those purposes; yes. 
 
 Mr. Madden. Do you contend you could take the water for the 
 development of water power Avithout getting authority from any- 
 body because of the fact that you Avere riparian OAvners? 
 
 Mr. CoHN. That Avas done for upAvard of 30 or 40 years by this 
 company, was adjudicated by the highest courts of the State of New 
 York, and it Avas recognized by the act of the State of Ncav York 
 that we had the poAver as riparian oAvners. Truly, all Avaters are sub- 
 ject to the jurisdiction of Congress so far as its control has any rela- 
 tion to navigation or to international defenses. 
 
 Mr. Moon. Right there, is not Congress the sole and absolute 
 judge of that question, and acts on its OAvn discretion regardless of 
 your rights, and you haA^e no right to complain of its action? 
 
 Mr. CoHN. I should not be Avilling to accede to that proposition. 
 I should say Congress had the right so far as it AA-as essential to the 
 preservation of those poAvers. 
 
 Mr. Moon. Who is to detei'mine that right? 
 
 Mr. CoHN. In the first instance. Congress. 
 
584 PRESERVATION 01' N lAGAKA FALLS. 
 
 Mr. Moon. That settles the whole question, then. 
 
 Mr. CoHN. But, if in the exercise of a power, it went beyond the 
 necessities of the case, the exercise of its power might possibly be 
 reviewed. 
 
 Mr. Moon. By Avhoni? 
 
 Mr. CoHN. That question does not come up here. 
 
 Mr. Lawrence. Who is going to say whether it has gone beyond 
 the necessities in maintaining a boundary stream? 
 
 Mr. Moon. That being true, it makes altogether unnecessary the 
 discussion of your common-laAv rights in the matter. 
 
 The Chairman. You do not dispute the power of Congress here 
 and noAv to pass the Burton l)ill or to pass a bill enabling the treaty 
 to be carried out? 
 
 Mr. CoHN. I assume, of course, Congress should pass a bill to 
 carry out the provisions of the treaty. But I want to call atten- 
 tion to the purposes for which they have exercised this power, as 
 stated in the act, that they said the power of the Secretary of War 
 should be so exercised that he should not grant permits which w^ould 
 ^ injure or interfere with the navigable capacity of the river " — that 
 Avas the point — •'" or its integrity and proper volume as a boundary 
 stream." Those are the essentials of jurisdiction of Congress, although 
 they did also insert "scenic grandeur of Niagara Falls," a matter 
 which, I take it, Congress has no jurisdiction over. The Burton bill 
 was carefully framed; the author of that measure took some pains 
 in putting in the purposes beyond Avhich the Secretary of War 
 should not go, that it should not interfere Avith the navigation of 
 the stream, and that it should not interfere Avith its integrity and 
 proper volume as a boundary stream. There is not any claim, and 
 would not be any claim, that all the Avater that has been taken from 
 the riA^er by all the companies would interfere Avith the stream as 
 to any one of those purposes. The Niagara River is not navigable 
 at that point. 
 
 Mr. Laavrence. The author of that bill put in something about 
 preserving the scenic grandeur, did he not ? 
 
 Mr. CoHN. He put that in, and that Avas something that might 
 have been the ultimate purpose of the bill. He was not willing 
 to rest the bill upon the poAver of Congress to preserve the scenic 
 grandeur of Niagara, hoAvever. and if he had left the bill in the form 
 that that was the only basis of jurisdiction assumed by Congress, I 
 take it, by this time the bill Avould have been declared unconsti- 
 tutional. 
 
 Mr. Laavrence. Let us give him credit for having the courage to 
 put it in. 
 
 Mr. Moon. He might have thought, too, being a boundary propo- 
 sition, he had a right to preserve it in its original state, thereby pre- 
 serving the scenic beauty. 
 
 Mr. CoHN. As an incident. 
 
 Mr. Moon. As a matter of right. 
 
 Mr. CoHN. Preserve it as a boundary. But since that time the 
 Secretary of War, acting under this Burton bill, has granted the 
 permit to the Niagara Falls Power Co, for the full amount of 8,600 
 cubic feet, which the International Waterways Commission recom- 
 mended; but when he came to make his grant to the Hydraulic 
 Power Co. he granted it 6,500 cubic feet. 
 
PRESERVATION OP NIAGARA FALLS. 585 
 
 Something has been said here about a provision in this bill which 
 limits it to existing companies, and talk has been had about giving 
 water to the existing companies. So far as the company I represent 
 is concerned, we do not feel that it is quite in the nature of giving us 
 some water; it is merely not taking something from us to which 
 we have the right at common law. If the Secretary of War, for 
 instance, should give a permit to some other company, he would be 
 taking away from us. 
 
 Mr. Moon. If you have the right to it, what do you come to us at 
 all for? 
 
 Mr. CoHN. I do not say we have a right, but I say this, we are 
 not asking Congress to give us something. 
 
 Mr. Moon. Yes; you are doing that very thing. If you have a 
 right, you do not have to ask us ; if you have not, you have to ask. 
 
 Mr. CoHN. If there was no legislation on this subject we would 
 have the right as riparian owners. 
 
 Mr. Lawrence. You ask it on equitable grounds ? 
 
 Mr. CoHN. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Young. Is not your position just this: That subject to the 
 controlling power of Congress for the purpose of preserving naviga- 
 tion and a boundary stream, you, as riparian owners, subject to this 
 power of Congress, have the absolute right to the water? 
 
 Mr. Cohn. You expressed it precisely and with great accuracy. 
 
 Mr. Young. And it would be an injustice to take it away from 
 you and give it to somebody else. 
 
 Mr. CoHN. Under the guise of protecting the navigability of the 
 stream, and under the guise of protecting it as an international 
 boundary, to take it away from us and give it to somebody else would 
 be, as it seems to me, a very rank and palpable injustice. 
 
 Mr. Madden. If you were entitled to 9,500 cubic feet a second, 
 under the legislation enacted by the State of New York, why was 
 it that the Secretarv of War only granted you a permit to take 
 6,500? 
 
 Mr. Cohn. He only had the power under the Burton bill to give 
 15,600, and he distributed that 6,500 to us and 9,100 to the others. 
 
 Mr. Madden. The Niagara Falls Power Co. got 100 per cent? 
 
 Mr. Cohn. Got 100 per cent of the recommendation of the Inter- 
 national Waterways Commission. 
 
 Mr. Moon. Is the situation such that no other power plants could 
 be erected except yours and the ones there ? 
 
 Mr. CoHN. I should say it would be a very difficult thing. I am 
 not enough of an engineer to pass upon all the possibilities. 
 
 Mr. Moon. Have no other people riparian rights along that river? 
 
 Mr. Cohn. None in the city of Niagara Falls. The Niagara Falls 
 Power Co. owns from our plant up to the boundary line of the city, 
 2 or 3 miles beyond. 
 
 Mr. Moon. And you have everybody shut out now except yourself? 
 
 Mr. Cohn. We have only our own strip of land 100 feet wide. We 
 have been there 60 years, and have never tried to shut out anybody. 
 
 Mr. Moon. But, according to your legal status as riparian owners, 
 there is nobody else who has an}' rights there as a riparian owner? 
 
 Mr. Cohn. No one has any rights superior to ours. 
 
 Mr. Moon. I mean if they had any at all they would be equal? 
 
586 PRESERVATION OF NIAGARA FALLS. 
 
 Mr. Coiix. I think they would be inferior, because we, being the 
 lower, claim superior rights. 
 
 Mr. Moon. As a riparian owner below another you Avould have a 
 superior legal right ? 
 
 Mr. CoiiN. I think that is unquestioned. 
 
 Mr. Moon. How about the ones ahead of you ? 
 
 Mr. CoiiN. Those below would be ahead of us; the State of New 
 York was ahead of us. 
 
 Mr. Moon. Suppose an individual was there; you say you are the 
 /ower and therefore you have a right superior to the one immediately 
 above you ? 
 
 Mr. CoHN. That is right. 
 
 Mr. Moon. Suppose there is one below you, then he would have a 
 right over you, would he not? 
 
 Mr. CoHN. There is one, the State of Xew York. 
 
 Mr. Moon. And there may be room for another? 
 
 Mr. CoHN. No: there is none. 
 
 Mr. Moon. Then you have to give all this power to the felloAv below 
 you ? 
 
 Mr. CoiiN. But Ave have made our arrangements Avith the fellow 
 beloAv us. 
 
 Mr. Moon. You have a combination Avith them, haA'e you? 
 
 Mr. CoHN. No; they say we can ha\"e so many feet per second. 
 
 Mr. Moon. Can you see any reason Avhy a person Avho can put a 
 plant in there above or beloAV you should not have an equal right Avith 
 you ? 
 
 Mr. CoHN. Yes. The right of a riparian oAvner to take away from 
 any navigable stream, or other stream, is a corporeal hereditament, as 
 much a part of the ground as a tree upon it. as much a part of the 
 ground as a rock upon it, as much a part of the ground as a mine 
 beloAv it. and repeated adjudications of courts have so held. 
 
 Mr. Moon. It is not a corporeal hereditament that is superior to 
 the right of Congress? 
 
 Mr. CoHN. No; I should say just as the gentleman said a little 
 while ago, that subject to the right of Congress to control the AA^aters 
 of the Niagara RiA er for those purposes for Avhich it has jurisdiction 
 our right comes next. 
 
 Mr. MooN. You are in the very anomalous position that because 
 you are a riparian owner,, although there may be others above and 
 below you who haA^e riparian rights, you haA^e a superior right to any- 
 body else, and Congress ought to recognize you? 
 
 Mr. CoHN. I say Ave have a riparian right Avhich has been adjudi- 
 cated ; that Congress has control of the stream for the purposes of 
 the Federal Government. 
 
 Mr. Moon. I understand that; but that is a matter of discretion, 
 Avhatever Congress determines about it. 
 
 Mr. CoHN. But ought Congress to exercise its discretion about 
 naA^gation or about an international boundary, and in the doing of 
 that take AA'ater to Avhich otherwise avc would haA^e a legal right and 
 gi\"e it to somebody else? That is the proposition. 
 
 Mr. Moon. You have three-fourths oi all the water noAV yourseh'es, 
 the tAvo concerns that are there? 
 
 Mr. CoHN. Three-fourths of all; that is. under the treatv. 
 
PRESERVATIOIT OF NIAGARA FALLS. 587 
 
 Mr. Moon. And the balance the Government has the right to use 
 under the treaty ought to be given to jou alone, to the exclusion of 
 the balance of the world? 
 
 Mr. CoHN. My position is this, that up to 9,500 cubic feet, which 
 we have the right to use, the water should come to us in the first in^ 
 stance before it goes to anybod}^ else. 
 
 (Thereupon, at 1.10 o'clock p. m., a recess was taken until 2.30 
 o'clock p. m.) 
 
 afternoon session. 
 
 Committee on Rivers and Harbors, 
 
 House of Representatives, 
 
 Friday, January 6, 1911. 
 The committee reconvened at 2.30 o'clock p. m., Hon. D. S. Alex- 
 ander (chairman) presiding. 
 
 The Chairman. I have here a letter from Mr. Charles Bennett 
 Smith, the Congressman-elect from the Buffalo district, which I will 
 read and make a part of the hearing. This letter is as follows : 
 
 Buffalo, N. Y., January 3, lt)Jl^ 
 Hon. D. S. Alexander, '■ 
 
 Chairman Rivers and Harbors Committee. - t 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 My Dear Sir : I shall be unable to attend the hearing on your bill, which 
 relates to the diversion of water from the Niagara River for power purposes. 
 However, I desire to protest against the passage of the bill, for the following 
 reasons : 
 
 It violates the principle laid down by Gov. Hughes in his recommendations 
 with reference to the conservation of natural resources in the State of New 
 York. 
 
 It is in direct hostility to the provision in the New York State law relating 
 to the development of power from the St. Lawrence River at the Long Sault 
 Rapids. 
 
 It is contrary to the principles of Gov. Dix, as outlined in his public addresses 
 since his election as chief executive of the State of New York. 
 
 It grants a permanent franchise to develop power and provides no restriction 
 as to price and no regulation as to its sale. 
 
 It should not be advanced in the House of Representatives without the atti- 
 tude of the State of New York having been first ascertained, since the power 
 to be developed under tjtie act would be sold in this State. 
 
 Will you be good enough to make my position known to the committee, and 
 greatly oblige. 
 
 "Very truly, yours, 
 
 Charles Bennett Smith. 
 
 I have also a letter here from the secretary of the Chamber of 
 Commerce and Manufacturers Club of Buffalo, New York, dated 
 January 3, 1911, which reads as follows: 
 
 Chamber of Commerce and Manufacturers' Club. 
 
 Buffalo, January 3, 1911. 
 Recommendations for amendments to bill H. R. 26688 for Congressional Com- 
 mittee on Rivers and Harbors. 
 
 Whereas the Real Estate Association of the Chamber of Commerce and 
 Manufacturers' Club, of Buffalo, N. Y., after several weeks' consideration, dur- 
 ing which time authorities on several sides were heard, passed a recommenda- 
 tion looking toward the amendment of the bill (H. R. 2668S), now before the 
 Congressional Committee on Rivers and Harbors, and 
 
 Whereas, after reference by the board of directors of the Chamber of Com- 
 merce and Manufacturers' Club to the National and State Affairs Committee, 
 that committee, after hearing the several sides, indorsed this proposed amend- 
 ment ; therefore, be it 
 72684—11 6 
 
588 
 
 PRESERVATIOX OF NIAGARA FALLS. 
 
 Rc.s()h-c<f, That wt', the hoard of directors of the Chamber of Commerce and 
 Manufacturers' (Muh. do hereby adopt that recommendation, and do accordingly 
 urge upon Congress tliat the bill in question be amended so that the distribution 
 of the additional 4.400 cubic feet of water per second to be taken from the 
 Niagara l{i\(n- for pi;\ver purposes under the terms of the treaty be at the 
 disposition of the Secretary of War, in his discretion, and not be confined or 
 restricted to any particular companies; and be it further 
 
 Rejoiced, That we do respectfully urge upon Congress that should the bill be 
 enacted that Congress should then transmit to the Secretary of War therewith 
 the following recommendation : 
 
 " That in the determination as to which company or companies shall be 
 granted this additional diversion, consideration should be given to the question 
 jis to which of the aiiplicant companies can produce and distribute to the con- 
 suming i)ut)lic the greatest amount of power at the lowest price." 
 
 The above resolutions were unanimously adopted by said board of <lii-ectors 
 ;at a meeting held Saturday, December 31, 1910. 
 
 Fenton M. Parke, Secretory. 
 
 I Avill read also this resolution: 
 
 To the Congress of the United States of America: 
 
 Whereas there was introduced in the National House of Representatives on 
 June 0. 1010. a bill known and desiguatefl as H. R. 26688 to amend sections 2, 
 3. and 5 of an act for the control and regulation of the waters of Niagara 
 River, etc. ; 
 
 And whereas the said act contains on pages 1 and 2 the following language: 
 
 •' Sec. 2. That the Secretary of War is hereby authorized to grant permits for 
 che diversion, within the State of New York, of the waters of the Niagara 
 River, above the Falls of Niagai'a. for the creation of power to individuals, com- 
 panies, or corporations which are now actually producing power from the 
 waters of the said river or its tributaries in the State of New York, or from the 
 Erie Canal: but lu-rmits for diversion shall be issued only to the individuals, 
 companies, or corporations as aforesaid, and not exceeding, to all individuals, 
 companies, or corporations as aforesaid, in the aggregate a daily diversion at 
 the rate of 20,000 cul)ic feet of water per second ", etc. : 
 
 Now. in view of the fact that the bill as drawn conveys all surplus waters 
 from above the Falls of the Niagara River which the United States may. under 
 Its treaty powers, bestow to existing water-]X)wer monoi)olies. thereby doing a 
 great wrong and damage to the city of Buffalo and to the American Niagara 
 frontier, we, the undersigned petitioners, residents of the city of Buffalo and 
 of the said Niagara frontier, respectfully protest against the manifest purpose 
 of the bill as revealed in its wording, and do urgently petition the Congress to 
 so change the spirit and wording of the act as to authorize the Secretary of 
 War to give the unappropriated waters covered by the act to that company or 
 corporation which can and will develop the largest amount of power from the 
 volume of wafer which the Secretary of War is empowered to give away, and 
 which will give to the public the greatest compensation for the use of such 
 waters ; and which will further contribute most to the sanitation and well-being 
 of the city of Buffalo and the inhabitants of the Niagara frontier in the State 
 of New York. 
 
 Respectfully submitted. 
 L. P. FuiiKMANN, Mai/or. 
 Harry Fisher, 
 
 Alderman Seventeenth Ward. 
 Francis E. Fronczak, M. D., 
 
 Commissioner of Healtli. 
 Francis G. Ward, 
 
 Coin/miss ion er of PiihUc Works. 
 Henky AnsiT Bull, Coinicilmnn. 
 AViLLiAM H. Ryan. 
 Robert H. Reed, 
 
 Mayor, Lackawanna. 
 James J. Moran, 
 
 Mayor, Lockport, N. Y. 
 Philip J. Keller, 
 
 Mayor, Niagara Falls, N. Y. 
 
 RoBT. J. Talbot, M. D., 
 
 Health Officer. 
 G. T. Smith, 
 Publishe)- Cataract .Toiirnal. 
 
 Niagara Falls. 
 Louis F. Fick, 
 
 Mayor, North Tonairanda, N. Y. 
 F. W. Bentley, 
 
 Health Officer, 
 
 North Tonatcanda, N. Y. 
 Orin J. Colijurn, 
 
 Supervisor of Golden, N. Y. 
 W. H. Follette. 
 Charles Zuckmaier, 
 
 Mayor, Tonawanda, N., Y. 
 
PRESEEVATION OF NIAGARA FALLS. 589 
 
 Also Ave have a communication from the American Scenic and His- 
 toric Preservation Society, practically in line with Mr. McFarland's 
 argument. Mr. Cohn, will you proceed now? 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. MOREIS COHN, JR., OF NIAGARA FALLS, 
 
 N. Y. — Continued. 
 
 Mr. CoHX. I shall try to be brief in what I have yet to say. The 
 Burton bill, as indicated, limited the amount of permits for diversion 
 on the American side to considerably less than the International 
 Waterways Commission reported. The bill was enacted, and we 
 have conducted ourselves in conformity with the act. One of the 
 purposes of the Burton bill was, as I understand it, to urge, and to 
 have it used as a lever, to procure a treaty with the Canadian Govern- 
 ment and its representatives. Now, the only people I know of who 
 made an}^ representations to the American Government to procure in 
 the treaty an increase in the amount of the diversion on the American 
 side were the two existing companies, and whatever increase of di- 
 versions is allowed by the treaty over that allowed by the Burton bill 
 it seems to me must necessarily have been made upon the representa- 
 tion of the Niagara Falls Power Co. and the Hydraulic Power Co., 
 and therefore it occurs to me that the treaty must have been enacted 
 with a view to the necessities of those two companies. This bill is 
 not in the form at all that the Hydraulic Power Co., of Niagara 
 Falls, would prefer. From our point of view you can see, from what 
 I have stated, that a bill which would direct the vSecretary of War to 
 prevent a diversion of power in excess of 20,000 cubic feet per 
 second and to leave to the companies themselves, or the users, the 
 question of their rights in and to that 20,000 cubic feet to be deter- 
 mined by the laws that existed before the Burton act was passed, 
 would be far preferable; but w^e have faith that our position is so 
 strong that it could not be denied by the Secretary of War, and 
 therefore the enactment of this bill would be a step in the right 
 direction. A simple act instructing the Secretary of War to see 
 that the treaty was enforced, and leaving it to be determined what 
 parties should have that 20,000 feet under the common law and 
 the treaty rights would be preferable, but the bill in its present 
 form would permit us to present our case to the Secretary of War. 
 AVe have no interest in the question of the transmission of power 
 from Canada, except that the more power that comes in from 
 Canada, of course the greater the competition with our company, 
 and I have nothing to say here on behalf of our company on that 
 subject; but I do think, as a matter of policy — I personally think — 
 that it is highly improvident on the part of the people of the United 
 States to prohibit the importation of power from Canada, and that 
 we ought to get here all that we can and as quickly as we can ; and 
 so far as this bill prohibits the limitation on the importation of 
 power it is also a step in the proper direction. 
 
 The Chairman. Are there any further questions to be asked Mr. 
 Cohn by the members of the committee? Mr. Powers, I think you 
 told me you did not care to be heard, as Mr. Cohn had already repre- 
 sented the company that you represent? 
 
590 PBESEEVATION OF NIAGAKA FALLS. 
 
 Mr. Powers. Yes; I think Mr. Colui has said all that we care to 
 say on that subject. Of course, I do not know whether any oppor- 
 tunity will be given to reply to those who may oppose our position 
 or not. Of course we would like an opportunity to do so, if any 
 opportunity is to be given. 
 
 The Chairman. Yes; of course that will be given. Mr. Corey, I 
 think you suggested that Gen. Greene had covered 3'our position? 
 
 Mr. Corey. Yes. 
 
 The Chairman. Then Ave will hear 3'ou next, Mr. Lovelace. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. FREDERICK L. LOVELACE, SECRETARY OF 
 THE NIAGARA FALLS POWER CO. 
 
 The Chairman. Will you give your full name to the stenographer, 
 and also the companies that you represent? 
 
 Mr. Lovelace. Frederick L. Lovelace ; I am secretary of the Niag- 
 ara Falls Power Co. 
 
 Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, at your general in- 
 vitation to those on the frontier who are interested in the matter, 
 in behalf of the Niagara Falls Power Co. I have availed myself of 
 the honor as well as the pleasure to be present, but the matter seems 
 so simple to me that I do not think there is much to discuss. The 
 Burton law was passed expressly as a temporary measure, whil^ the 
 President of the United States should negotiate a treaty, which he 
 was directed to do by the terms of the act, regulating between Great 
 Britain and this country the limits of the diversion of water from the 
 Niagara Eiver. That treaty has now been negotiated, and, as some 
 one has already said, is now the supreme law of the land, and it is a 
 matter of duty for this Congi-ess to make it effective so that the faith 
 pledged by this Nation shall not be violated. The act as now drawn, 
 it seems to me, is the simplest one possible to carry into execution that 
 duty. After long and careful consideration by this committee, the 
 Burton law was enacted, having been first referred to this committee. 
 Great care was taken in the drafting of that law, and many months 
 were consumed in its consideration. I do not agree that the result 
 reached was a wise one, but my opinion may be from a biased view- 
 point. Now, all that the present bill seeks to do is to remove restric- 
 tions from the Burton law which are not consistent with the treaty as 
 negotiated. As far as the division of any additional amount of water 
 permitted to be diverted by the treaty is concerned, I do not believe 
 that it is a matter which should be discussed here. It has been dis- 
 cussed at some length by gentlemen before me, but the bill now rele- 
 gates that to the Secretary of War, and it seems to me that all such 
 discussion and all inquiries in regard to water distribution among 
 existing companies or others is a matter for that official to inquire into 
 and to determine. 
 
 The Chairman. You mean to say, Mr. Lovelace, the bill, as it is 
 conceded it will be amended, refers it to the Secretary of War? 
 
 Mr. Lovelace. Yes ; it is now referred to the Secretary of War as 
 it is, except, of course, that it restricts diversion to existing companies, 
 a provision incorporated into the Burton law, not at the seeking 
 of the existing companies, but at the request of the gentleman who 
 first addressed you this morning, and it was an entirely consistent 
 provision. That gentleman took the position, and all of the societies 
 
PEESERVATIOiSr OF XIAGAEA FALLS. 591 
 
 back of him took the position, that diversion had gone far enough. 
 The State of Xew York had granted many charters to other com- 
 panies. They had not put them • into effect. They had invested 
 very little money in them, excejDt for their plans. They should 
 be stopped ; diversion should go no further than it had already 
 gone. It seems to me it was a consistent position for him to 
 take then. He took it. It was incorporated into the law by this 
 committee and was adopted by Congress. However, I understand 
 you to suggest that this committee will now perhaps remove that 
 feature from the bill. If it does, we will go before the Secretary 
 of War and state our case and try to make it plain there. To those 
 theorists who carry their heads in the clouds and revel in the pictures 
 which their fanc}^ makes, this may be a different question, but to us 
 practical fellows who keep our feet on the earth it seems a very 
 plain, practical question, and that there are no two courses for this 
 committee to pursue. The duty is incumbent upon it, it seems to me, 
 to put into effect the provisions of the treaty. The bill as now intro- 
 duced does it in a very simple manner, considering that the Burton 
 law is now the law. 
 
 The Chairman. I was reserving Mr. Eandolph and Mr. Bowen 
 until later. Was anyone else to speak, Mr. Bowen, in behalf of your 
 project? 
 
 Mr. Bowen. Not necessarily. 
 
 The Chairman. I was reserving you until a little later. 
 
 Mr. Bowen. Very well. 
 
 The Chairman. To take up your project bj^ itself. 
 
 Mr. Madden. Mr. Lovelace, will you let me ask you a question? 
 
 Mr. Lovelace. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Madden. Have you any objection to the bill being so amended 
 as to permit open comj^etition for the water that may be diverted ? 
 
 Mr. Lovelace. Mr. Madden, as a matter of principle, as a matter 
 of strict justice, I am in entire harmony with the theory advanced 
 by Mr. Cohn on that subject; not entirely with the facts as stated, 
 but with the theory. I will not now restate such facts as I understand 
 them. I have already stated that if this committee shall deem it 
 wise to strike out that provision our company will make no serious 
 objection. We believe that our position in the matter is one that 
 will commend itself to the Secretary of War or to any other official 
 of the United States or other body which will inquire carefully into 
 the facts. We have been greatly damaged by the undue restrictions 
 of the Burton law. We have suffered much from it, suffered far be- 
 yond the intent, I think, of the framers of the Burton law, far 
 beyond the intent of the gentleman who first addressed you this 
 morning, as he told me in a personal conversation this morning. 
 
 The Chairman. In what respect? 
 
 Mr. Lovelace. Because the amount of 8,600 cubic feet of water 
 did not permit us to develop power from the installations which 
 we already had in place when the Burton law was enacted. Our 
 position in that respect is much stronger than that of any other 
 company. Other companies since that time have gone on and made 
 further developments. We had a development at that time which 
 8,600 feet of water did not take care of. 
 
 Mr. Madden. How much was the installation which you had in, 
 at the time the Burton law went into effect, capable of developing? 
 
592 PRESERVATION OF NIAGARA FALLS. 
 
 Mr. Lovelace. In horsepower? 
 
 Mr. Madden. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Lovelace. The plant has been spoken of as a 100,000-horse- 
 power plant. We had hoped to do somewhat better than that. We 
 are restricted, of course, by the amount of water that will be dis- 
 charged by our tunnel. How great an amount of electric power we 
 can finally develop from the water thus discharged, with the very 
 best perfected machinery, I can not now state; I am not an engineer, 
 but it is somewhat above 100,000 horsepower. 
 
 Mr. Madden. You did not answer my question. 
 
 Mr. Lovelace. Didn't I? I tried to. You asked me for it in horse- 
 power. 
 
 Mr. Madden. You stated that the allotment of 8.C00 feet of water 
 per second to your company was not a sufficient quantity to enable 
 you to utilize the plant which you had installed and through which 
 you could develop a much larger horsepower 
 
 Mr. Lovelace. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Madden (continuing). Than the 8,600 cubic feet of water a 
 minute would permit. 
 
 Mr. Lovelace. In other words, you asked it in cubic feet per 
 second ? 
 
 Mr. ]Madden. That is practically what you said, if not in your 
 words. 
 
 Mr. Lovelace. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Madden. Now, I want to know how much installation you 
 had, what was the capacity of the installation you had, through 
 which this injustice was done you? 
 
 Mr. Lovelace. I will answer you. We had installed 21 units. 
 Each of those units was capable of developing at least o.OOO horse- 
 power. Eleven of them were capable of producing upward of 5,500 
 horsepower each. 
 
 Mr. Young. How many cubic feet of water was that? 
 
 Mr. Madden. That is what 1 want to get at, 
 
 Mr. Lovelace. Substantially 2,000 cubic feet of water more. 
 
 Mr. YoLTNG. More than you got? 
 
 Mr. Lovelace. Yes; more than the restriction of 8,600 cubic feet 
 imposed by the Burton law. 
 
 Mr. Young. That is 10.600 feet? 
 
 Mr. Lovelace. Yes; 10,600 cubic feet required for the installation 
 in place. 
 
 Mr. Young. Was that plant all complete at the time this limitation 
 of 8,600 feet was fixed ? 
 
 Mr. Lovelace. It was. 
 
 Mr. Madden. And you have not been able to take advantage of 
 the investment that was made prior to this allotment? 
 
 Mr. Lovelace. We have not. 
 
 Mr. Madden. And can not. under the present allotment? 
 
 Mr. Lovelace. Not until the restrictions are removed or liber- 
 alized. The justice of such liberalization is admitted by all who 
 are correctly informed of the facts and competent to pass on the 
 situation, ^^aj. Charles Keller, in command of the United States 
 Lake Survey, the United States engineering body having super- 
 vision of operations under permits issued by authority of the Bur- 
 
PEESERVATION OF NIAGARA FALLS. 593- 
 
 ton law. in his report to the Chief of Engineers under date of Sep- 
 tember 21, 1909, made the following statement: 
 
 The desirability, ;is well as the .instice. of ameiuliiiK the Kurtoii act so as 
 to penuir the Niagara Falls Power Company to divert water to the full 
 capacity of its tail-race tunnel are plain. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. J. BOARDMAN SCOVELL. 
 
 Mr. ScovELL. In appearing before you, Mr. Chairman and gentle- 
 men of the committee, I am somewhat in the position of the distin- 
 guished speaker of this morning, Gen. Greene, when he was asked 
 certain questions. Like him, I am entirely unbiased. I formerly was 
 the attorney for the Niagara County Irrigation and Water Supply 
 Co., one of the companies chartered by the State of New York to 
 take water from the Niagara River for the production of power, 
 which compaii}' has since been acquired by the General Electric, the 
 data in regard to which are found in the hearing before this com- 
 mittee in 1906, from pages 15 to 45. 
 
 The Chairman. In a Avorcl, if I remember correctly, that company 
 took the water from just above the rapids and carried it down to 
 Devils Hole ? ^ 
 
 ]\Ir. ScovELL. Yes ; to a point below the A^Hiirlpool Rapids. 
 
 The Chairman. Yes. 
 
 Mr. ScovELL. Of course, since the transfer of that charter to the 
 General Electric interests, I have not been connected with it pro- 
 fessionally, and I have been interested simply as a citizen of western 
 New York, a resident of the town of Lewiston, where Devils Hole is 
 located, and a practicing attorney in the city of Buffalo, and as one 
 who desires to see the maximum amount of power made available on 
 the frontier; and this bill is of great importance as bearing upon 
 that issue. I feel that I should review the situation somewhat at 
 length, and in such a way as to enable you quickly to grasp some of 
 the principles involved, and I can do that by an exhibit of this picture 
 of Gen. Greene's showing conditions at Niagara Falls. [Mr. Scovell 
 here exhibited the picture referred to.] The American Falls, so 
 called, is separated from the Horseshoe Falls, so called, by Goat 
 Island ; and the line of breakers, so called, is below the head of Goat 
 Island, so that the water Avhich is diverted below the line of breakers 
 on either side can not affect the flow of water on the other side. On 
 the American side we have a State park which extends practically 
 from the edge of the American Falls to the point where the Hydraulic 
 Power Co. takes its water from the Niagara River, above the line of 
 breakers; and by the act creating our State park we are forbidden 
 from diverting water inside of the State park for power purposes. 
 Consequently, there can be no diversion on the American side which 
 draws exclusively from the American Falls, Avhereas on the Canadian 
 side 3^ou notice from this picture that the Electric Development Co. 
 and the Canadian Niagara Falls Power Co. are both of them far below 
 the line of breakers. It is a physical impossibility for the water 
 drawn by either of these two companies in any way to affect the flow 
 of water over the American Falls, as they divert wholly from the 
 Horseshoe Falls. Gen. Greene's company is located right here, prac- 
 tically at the point at which the water breaks [indicating], and 
 assuming, for the jjurposes of argument, that he actually diverts 
 
594 PRESERVATION OF NIAGARA. FALLS. 
 
 from the river as such, the same as the two companies on the Ameri- 
 can side have to do, then his company diverts with the two American 
 companies from the Niagara River as such, and therefore from the 
 two falls in proportion to tlie respective flow over either; and Gen. 
 Greene told 3'ou this morning that that flow over the American Falls 
 only was about 4.5 per cent of the total flow over the two falls. 
 
 Now, the late President of the United States, I believe, in his 
 communications to Congress affecting this matter confused the terms 
 "American Falls " and " Horseshoe Falls " by using the term " Cana- 
 dian Falls " instead of " Horseshoe Falls," and the permitted diver- 
 sion on the American side was primarily based upon its effect in 
 reducing the flow which goes over the American Falls. But, as a 
 matter of fact, you can see that of the 15,600 cubic feet now diverted 
 by the Hydraulic Power Co. and the Niagara Falls Power Co. only 
 the proportion which flows over the American Falls is taken from 
 the American Falls, or 4.5 per cent; and if you go on and allow the 
 additional amount up to the maximum given by the treaty, of 20,000 
 cubic feet per second, only about 4.5 per cent, or 900 cubic feet per 
 second, is going to be taken from the American Falls, and the engi- 
 neer's report bearing upon the effect of diversion upon the American 
 Falls is to the effect that less than four-tenths of an inch is diverted 
 from the American Falls, whereas a larger amount is diverted from 
 the Horseshoe Falls. The reason of that is, as I showed you, that only 
 4.5 per cent of the three diversions came from the American Falls, 
 whereas 95.5 per cent of the three diversions and the whole of the 
 other two diversions [indicating] came from the Horseshoe Falls. 
 .You can therefore understand how the diversion on the American 
 side from the American Falls makes practically no perceptible dif- 
 ference in the flow. You can also understand how the diversion from 
 the Horseshoe Falls may be so much as 2.5 inches (although I doubt 
 it being as great as that), since it is affected by the present diversion 
 on both the American side and the Canadian side. This is of interest 
 as bearing upon the question of scenic beauty, and I speak of it at 
 this point because I believe you are justified in ignoring the request of 
 Mr. McFarland or his associates on that point, as any person suffi- 
 ciently interested in the topography of the Niagara district to really 
 investigate the situation and the location of the plants with respect 
 to the State park and the line of breakers would come to the conclu- 
 sion that I have just presented to you. The international boundary 
 line may pass through the Horseshoe Falls just bej^ond Terrapin 
 Tower Point, so that the United States are not entitled to as large a 
 portion as Canada of the Horseshoe Falls, which is admittedly not 
 all Canadian. 
 
 I approved heartily of the action of the Ontario Government park 
 officials when they pushed out toward the line of deeper water, so that 
 people could see the Falls better. They pushed out there and walled 
 it in and made a parapet. It was for the beautification of the Cana- 
 dian park that that was done, not from the standi^oint of any power 
 interests. It was scenic beauty that was sought for in the accom- 
 plishment of that result; and it might be well if the commissioners 
 of the New York State Park would do the same thing on the Ameri- 
 can side as you approach from Goat Island clown toward Terrapin 
 Tower Point, so that the people may get a better place to see the Falls 
 in its majesty and might. But that would be entirely within the 
 
PRESERVATIOX OF NIAGARA FALLS, 595 
 
 province of the State park commissioners, acting with a view to the 
 preservation and enhancement of the scenic beauty of the Falls. I hope 
 you will pardon me for having trespassed on your time in discussing 
 this subject of the scenic beauty ; but, passing now to the more prac- 
 tical point of the development of power, I will take up first this 
 question of the importation of power. Under the Burton bill we 
 are allowed to import into the United States 160,000 horsepower. 
 That is a matter of permit of the United States; nothing which 
 binds the Ontario or Dominion Government. There is no reason 
 why that limitation should be put on. We are already using every 
 foot-pound of power, every horsepower that is available on the Amer- 
 ican side, under the Burton bill. We are purchasing and import- 
 ing, as stated by Gen. Greene this morning, over 100,000 horsepower 
 additional from two Canadian companies. That shows the need of 
 the United States and of the State of New York for power, and 
 establishes conclusively that it is part of your duty to see that there 
 be made available at the first possible opportunity all the additional 
 water for power purposes that we may have on our own side of the 
 river under the treaty. 
 
 I believe this limitation of 160,000 horsepower should be omitted 
 from this bill in the way in which it is, so that we may import more 
 power from Canada, and I do feel that the omission to have a deter- 
 mination of the right to import power from Canada, in the treaty 
 itself, was a grave omission. The Province of Ontario, it is true, 
 has said to the three power companies, " You may export half of your 
 power until such time as it is needed here." The Dominion Govern- 
 ment in negotiating this treaty through Ambassador Bryce has omit- 
 ted any reference to the export of power, and is in position, abso- 
 lutely regardless of the Province of Ontario, to positively prohibit it. 
 I haj^pened to be a shareholder in one of the Standard Oil's sub- 
 sidiaries in Canada, which heretofore exported natural gas into the 
 United States for use in the city of Buffalo, and the respect for exist- 
 ing contracts outstanding between our company and the city of 
 Buifalo was not such as you would expect in the Congress of the 
 United States, where you are accustomed to constitutional legisla- 
 tion. Canada, being as it is a parliamentary country, gives no con- 
 stitutional guaranty of the obligation of contracts. The Dominion 
 Government simply said to us, " We will permit you to export half 
 of your gas if you will build a main to supply a certain city," neces- 
 sitating a confiscatory assessment equivalent to 150 per cent of our 
 total capital in order to build such main, and after two years the 
 Dominion Government revoked its permit and absolutely forbade the 
 exportation of natural gas, requiring it all to be sold in Canada, not- 
 withstanding our contract. Now, that shows 3'ou the position that any- 
 one who manufactures power in Canada and arranges to sell it in the 
 United States is in, because even though they may have contracts for 
 the sale of power throughout New York State, as far east as Syracuse, 
 they may be obliged to increase the price because of the putting on of 
 an export duty; and if there is a demand for that power in Canada, 
 such an export duty will be put on to the extent of the necessity of 
 forcing the retention in Canada of the power for use there. There- 
 fore it is wise that we be allowed to have so much power as we can 
 get imported from Canada, although I believe that the treaty should 
 
596 PBESERVATIOX OF NIAGARA FALLS. 
 
 be revised so that there will be no question about our right to inijiort, 
 because an export duty on power from Canada has the effect of in- 
 creasing; the cost to the consumers in the United States that a high 
 tariff thereon by the United States would have. 
 
 The Chairmax. Was that brought to the attention of the treaty 
 commissioners ? 
 
 Mr. ScovELL. I personally brought the matter to the attention of 
 the treaty commissioners, and I came here and worked for a week 
 with the Senate of the United States in opposition to the treaty on 
 that ground. In fact I understand the Hydro-Electric Power Com- 
 mission of Ontario were represented here in that matter, because they 
 wanted the assurance from the Dominion Government that they 
 would be protected by an export duty if it became necessary, and 
 when they got that assurance they withdrew their opposition to the 
 treaty going through. So you see these things have an important 
 bearing upon this question before you. You should allow this bill in 
 its present form to go through, in order that Ave may have available 
 as large an amount of imported power as possible. 
 
 The Chairman. You refer to the bill in its present form so far as 
 it relates to the importation of power? 
 
 Mr. ScovELL. Yes; you have omitted any reference to it, but by so 
 doing have amended the Burton bill. If this bill passes, as drafted 
 by you, there Avill be no limitation to 160,000 horsepower, as to what 
 may be imported. 
 
 The Chairman. I understand, too, that you believe that the whole 
 matter should be relegated to the Secretary of War to divide the 
 4,400 additional feet? 
 
 Mr. ScovELL. I am just coming to that now. I think I have wasted 
 your time sufficiently on the question of importation, but I do feel 
 "that this is of importance, and the question of maintaining the Bur- 
 ton bill's importation restrictions, as urged by Mr. McFarland this 
 morning, in order to prevent Canada from developing unduly for ex- 
 port to the Ignited States. should*not receive consideration, because we 
 need all the power we can get. The discrimination between the 
 United States and Canada in the amount of water that the two coun- 
 tries are allowed can only be made up by importation, to any extent. 
 
 The Chairman. You understand why the Burton bill made that 
 limitation? 
 
 Mr. ScovELL. I do. quite Avell : and I understand also that the reason 
 why we were allowed the 4.400 additional feet was in order to com- 
 pensate us for not having any reference made in the treaty to the 
 question of the limitation on imported poAver. if we should be ulti- 
 mately excluded by a Canadian export duty or prohibition. Xow, 
 that is— — 
 
 The Chairman. That is a new one. 
 
 Mr. ScovELL. That is a new one, perhaps. 
 
 Mr. Lovelace. It is a new one, all right. 
 
 Mr. Madden. Can you state how the international commission 
 reached the conclusion that 20.000 cubic feet per second on the Ameri- 
 can side and 3G.000 cubic feet per second on the Canadian side Avere 
 the quantities of Avater that could be properly diverted Avithout affect- 
 ing the Niagara Falls? 
 
 Mr. ScovELL. That Avas not met by the commission. That Avas met 
 by those who had the negotiation of the treaty, purely. 
 
PRESERVATION OF NIAGARA FALLS. 597 
 
 Mr. Madden. I understand you were closely identified with those 
 who weve negotiating the treaty? 
 
 Mr. ScovELL. I knew something of it, but I do not think I could 
 say who had the fixing of that amount; but I will relate now another 
 point. This bill says that the 4,400 additional cubic feet of water 
 shall be divided bet^^'een the two companies now producing powder. 
 You have heard the argument of Mr. Colin this morning, in which he 
 tells you, and very properly, in accordance with the statutes confirm- 
 ing the rights of the Hydraulic Power Co., that they have the right 
 to take Avater through a canal of a certain width and of a certain 
 depth at a certain rate of speed, which is sufficient to take 9,500 feet 
 of water, and that they have a permit now to take 6,500 feet, or 3,000 
 feet less than what their canal is capable of taking under their charter, 
 and they feel entitled to 3,000 of the 4,400 additional cubic feet 
 allowed hj the treaty. Now, the important factor, from the stand- 
 point of western New York, is the question of conservation, the pro- 
 duction of the maximum amount of power with the use of a limited 
 quantity of water. There has been given to the Niagara Falls 
 Power Co. 8,600 cubic feet of water. It is admitted by them that 
 thej'^ can produce with each cubic foot of water 10 horsepower. 
 That means that 8,600 feet of water Avill produce 86,000 horse- 
 power. They have installed 21 units, capable of producing 105,000 
 horsepower, 1 unit being kept in reserve at all times for the purpose 
 of taking the place of any unit which might be out of order, so that 
 the company is known as a 100,000-horsepower company. Now. it 
 will take to make the difference between 86,000 horsepower and 
 100,000 horsepower 1,400 cubic feet of water, which, plus the 3,000 
 cubic feet of water to which the Hydraulic Power Co. claims it is 
 entitled, makes the 4,400 additional cubic feet exactly allowed by 
 the treaty. 
 
 Mr. ]\Iaddex. And that matter was in the minds of the men who 
 negotiated the treaty? 
 
 Mr. ScovELL. I assume that it was. I do not know, but there are 
 the flat figures as presented to-day. 
 
 Mr. Madden. Then it was not a question of scientific, mathematical 
 calculation at all, upon the part of the engineers of the United States, 
 that induced the negotiators of the treaty to come to the conclusion 
 that 4,400 feet additional of water should be allowed, but the demand 
 or the request of these two companies, the Hydraulic Power Co. and 
 the other company, to which you referred ? 
 
 Mr. ScovEEL. I do not know to what extent the influence of the 
 officials of one company or the other may have had its effect upon 
 those who had the negotiation of the treaty, or upon the engineers 
 of the United States who assisted in drafting this bill. The senior 
 Senator from New York at the time, Senator Depew, had been a 
 director of the Niagara Falls Power Co., I understand, as had Mr. 
 Reid, the ambassador to Great Britain. 
 
 Mr. Lawrence. What do you now understand is being developed 
 by the Niagara Falls Power Co. ? 
 
 Mr. ScovELL. Eighty-six thousand horsepower: 10 horsepower per 
 cubic foot. 
 
 Mr. Lawrence. Here is a statement Avhich says: 
 
 The amouut of power actually generated by the Niagara Falls Power Co. is 
 substantially 90.000 electrical horsepower, maximum. In addition thereto, sub- 
 
598 PKESERVATION OF NIAGARA FALLS. 
 
 stantially 9,000 horsepower, in the form of hydraulic power, is generated by its 
 said power tenants, operating under its rights, for power development. 
 
 Mr. ScovELL. Yes; they are permitted to take water for a tenant 
 sufficient to generate 9,000 horsepower, but that is hydraulic and not 
 electrical. 
 
 Mr. Lovelace. You have contradicted several times figures that I 
 gave, and I think it is hardly fair to me. 
 
 Mr. ScovELL. I understood you as using the figures as given there. 
 
 Mr. Lovelace. No; I did not. I have given to the committee, in 
 detail, exact figures of the installation of the Niagara Falls Power 
 Co., made prior to the enactment of the Burton law, and now you are 
 giving them in another form. 
 
 Mr. ScovELL. At the time of the meeting of the Chamber of Com- 
 merce of Buffalo you stated that your Niagara Falls Power Co. were 
 producing only 10 horsepower for each cubic foot of water taken by 
 you, whereas the Hydraulic Power Co. stated that they were able, 
 by reason of their greater head, to produce 20 horsepower with 
 each foot of water. Now, it is to the interest of western New York 
 that if we are only to take a limited amount of water from the Ni- 
 agara River for the generation of power, that limited amount should 
 be given to such corporations as can make it the most efficient in the 
 generation of power, so that the people of western New York will 
 have the maximum amount of power for use there. To that end I 
 prepared, about a week after the treaty was promulgated, a bill 
 amending the Burton bill, looking to the making of this 4,400 cubic 
 feet of water efficient, and tried to get it introduced, but without suc- 
 cess, before Congress. In that bill I gave to the Secretary- of "War 
 this power: 
 
 Permitting such companies, corporations, and their assigns as shall satisfy the 
 Secretary of War of ability to develop the maximum quantity of electrical 
 power from such limited diversion of water. 
 
 Mr. Madden. In other words, you would give the preference to 
 the company that would develop 20 horsepower from every foot 
 rather than to the one who would develop only 10 horsepower? 
 
 Mr. ScovELL. Yes; and I would take away the limitation from 
 those companies now actually producing ; and if any other chartered 
 company could go in and satisfy the Secretary of War of its ability to 
 produce a larger amount of power from the same limited amount of 
 water, that the legislation adopted by Congress should modify the 
 discretion given to the Secretar}^ of War to the extent of reciting that 
 the permit should be issued to such company as should satisfy him 
 of their ability so to do. 
 
 Mr. Young. Mr. Scovell. if you will permit me, I presume you 
 are pretty familiar with all the legal questions growing out of this 
 situation ? 
 
 Mr. ScoA^LL. I have written several opinions on it. 
 
 Mr. Young. Yes. Now, what do you say to Mr. Cohn's propo- 
 sition that by virtue of the shore ownership of his company, they 
 have the exclusive right, subject to the control of Congre.ss. to the 
 natural flow of the water, or diversion of the water, whichever way 
 you may put it, on their own land, without any reference to the 
 rights of the State, and notwithstanding the fact that the State 
 owns the submerg-ed land? 
 
PEESEEVATION OF jSTIAGAEA FALLS. 599 
 
 Mr. ScovELL. There is no question but that the State of New York 
 owns the bed of the Niagara River out to the international boundary 
 line, under the decision of our court of appeals and other higher 
 courts. 
 
 Mr. Young. Yes. 
 
 Mr. ScovELL. So that so far as that is concerned the laws of the 
 State of New York are well settled, and the diversion which was 
 made by the Hydraulic Power Co. of Niagara Falls, in its original 
 little canal for hydraulic power development, at that time was with 
 the consent of the riparian owners who conveyed this land. 
 
 Mr. Young. Yes. 
 
 Mr. ScovELL. That land, the land below the diversion, between 
 that and the crest of the Falls, subsequently and in 1884 became a 
 State park, and to protect themselves they first sought in 1896 legisla- 
 tive action to protect themselves against the claim of the State of New 
 York to be the riparian owner of land below them, to the edge of 
 the Falls, and they have been confirmed in their right so far as that is 
 concerned. 
 
 Mr. Young. Now, assuming that to be a fact, that is, that they 
 own the land, a certain portion, above the Falls, that they have -ac- 
 quired the right of the State as the riparian proprietor below that 
 in the land running clear to the Falls 
 
 Mr. ScovELL. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Young (continuing). Assuming that to be so, what right has 
 the Congress of the United States, in the exercise of its power to 
 protect navigation and preserve a national boundary, to attempt to 
 take that right away from them and give it to somebody else who can 
 give better service? 
 
 Mr. ScovELL. I am glad you brought that up, because I wish to 
 consider that specifically. 
 
 Mr. Young. It seems to me it is a very important question. 
 
 Mr. ScovELL. In my opinion the Burton act as originally drafted 
 was clearly unconstitutional, and would have been so held had the 
 time for which it was to operate been sufficient to have obtained a 
 decision from the highest court. But the limited time during which 
 it was to be in effect, only to enable the then President of the 
 United States to negotiate an international treaty, made it prac- 
 tically out of the question to test its constitutionality, and therefore 
 the efforts of all interested parties were diverted from the question 
 of attack on the Burton bill to the question of what should the 
 treaty itself contain, because the treaty is the supreme law of the 
 land, which all citizens of the State have got to recognize. 
 
 Mr. Young. Yes; but right there, the Governments by treaty be- 
 tween themselves can not affect the private rights of a citizen. 
 
 Mr. ScovELL. The citizens have got to respect the terms of the 
 treaty, and it is the supreme law of the land, and there is no court 
 to which they can go for redress, except to apply through the Court 
 of Claims after we get suitable legislation to that end for damages, 
 and I doubt very much if even then that could be obtained, because 
 the damage is due to an international act rather than to the act of 
 this Government, acting by itself. But the treaty has taken effect. 
 
 Mr. Young. But let me put this question to you : Supposing that 
 some corporation or individual on the American side owned whatever 
 
600 PRESERVATION OF NIAGARA FALLS. 
 
 riparian riglits there were there, and some other concern on the 
 Canadian side owned whatever riparian rights there were on that 
 side, what those rights were wouhl he a matter of determination in 
 the courts. 
 
 Mr. ScovELL. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. Young. How far they extended. Suppose, then, these two 
 Governments by treat3' between themselves tried to fix the riparian 
 rights there at something entirely different from what the law would 
 fix them, do you contend that that would be binding upon the owners 
 of those rights? 
 
 Mr. ScovELL. I am sorry to say that I do. 
 
 Mr. Young. I never heard a lawyer express that opinion before. 
 
 Mr. ScovELL. Because I can not see how I can get redress for the 
 damage that has been wrought. In that case the Burton bill — and 
 I will bring my argument around to that, if you will allow me 
 
 Mr. Young. Yes; but just a moment. See what will happen. 
 Suppose the parties who seemed to be aggrieved by this brought suit, 
 any kind of a jiroper suit, to recover either possession of the property 
 or for the infringement upon it ; the other side would plead the 
 treaty. That would certainly bring the matter into the court for 
 adjudication, and the question would be of whether that treaty was 
 binding upon these private rights. 
 
 Mr. ScovELL. I think it would be held that the treaty was binding, 
 and the other man would have to give in, and that is why it is so 
 important that the treaty should be right. 
 
 Mr. Young. I am sorry I can not agree with you. 
 
 Mr. ScovELL. The executive has a certain power. It has to be 
 confirmed by the Senate, and it has to be confirmed before that power 
 is exercised. 
 
 Mr. Young. No one questions that a treaty within the jurisdiction 
 of the United States is the supreme law of the land. 
 
 Mr. ScovELL. Now, take the question of the next company up the 
 river, if you like, the next riparian owner above, and we will con- 
 cede, for the sake of argument, that this is the Niagara Falls Power 
 Co. which has entered upon and begun the construction of a plant to 
 take Avater for the development of power from the Niagara River 
 under a charter granted by the State of New York. If the Hydraulic 
 Power Co., which is lower down the river, should be injured, as the 
 lower riparian owner it would have the right, when water was being 
 diverted from the river, to question that diversion and to bring an 
 action and enjoin, and if it did not do so within a reasonable length 
 of time, it Avould be considered to be estopped by its own laches. The 
 lower riparian owner has a right to divert, and is diverting under a 
 charter from New York in this case, and so has the upper; and still 
 another company has a right, the one formerly represented by me has 
 the right, to take water still further up the river, and the question 
 was raised as to its power to condemn, and we went to the appellate 
 courts upon that issue, and the court took the same position, that the 
 water of the Niagara River, although it flowed over State land, w^as 
 not State property, but belonged to the man who first impounded it. 
 In the matter of the constitutional question of wdiether it needed 
 a two-thirds or a three-fifths vote to grant the right to take the 
 water from the Niagara River, those questions were thoroughly 
 
PRESERVATION OF NIAGARA FALLS. 601 
 
 thrashed out in that case, so that I think there is no question of the 
 rehitive rights of oor|)orations hoUling charters from the vState of 
 New York to take water from the Niaaaia River, providing they 
 take it within the limitations fixed by Congress under the treaty. 
 
 Mr. Young. Do I understand you to deny, then, that a riparian 
 owner, as such merely, has no right to use the water flowing by his 
 land, but that he must go to the State to acquire that right, and that 
 lie has no greater right than a stranger? 
 
 Mr. ScovELL. The riparian owner has the first right to the water 
 flowing by his land. He has no right of injunction and has only a 
 right to damages if a party, who diverts water from above him, di- 
 verts water that he does not need, or for which he has no use. 
 
 Mr. Young. That is a question of damages. 
 
 Mr. ScovELL. That is a question of damages. That is the only 
 factor which comes in along that line of the argument. 
 
 Mr. Young. But his bare right is recognized. 
 
 Mr. ScovELL. There is no question about that. Now, there is 
 present here the former engineer of the company to which I referred; 
 he said in a hearing recently that that company could produce 24 
 horsepower for each foot of water. How economically that could be 
 done is a question, but you heard this morning that the Ontario Power 
 Co. is producing at from $95 to $100 per horsepower for its invest- 
 ment account. The investment account of the Niagara Falls Power 
 Co. is much larger than that. The investment account of the Hy- 
 draulic Power Co. is less, those things being dependent upon the 
 methods of developing power and also on the amount of head. The 
 head of the Niagara Falls Power Co., as I understand it, is 136 feet. 
 The head of the Ontario Power Co. is 178 feet. Is that correct? 
 
 Gen. Greene. That is the net. It is 202 feet gross. 
 
 Mr. ScovELL. The net head of the Hydraulic Power Co. is consid- 
 erably in excess of 200 feet, is it not ? 
 
 Mr. ScHOELLKOPF. It is 210 feet. 
 
 Mr. ScovELL. That is what I understood; and the head which 
 would be available by a company taking water above the rapids to 
 below the lower rapids would be still greater, and so be made more 
 efficient; and while I have no brief on behalf of any company, my 
 sole contention in coming before you is that it is to the interest of the 
 city of Buffalo and the other cities along the frontier, and distributing 
 districts from there, that only such companies should receive the 
 additional amount of water as can make it the most efficient in the 
 generation of power. I think the Secretary should give consideration 
 also to the capital cost per horsepower, as that is a factor in the ques- 
 tion of the price at which it can be furnished to the people. As it is, 
 the only chance of competition which we have on the American side is 
 with imported power. But if this additional 4.400 cubic feet is 
 divided between the producing companies, the only opportunity then 
 of competition as against the two existing companies will be the 
 importation of power, as to which we have no protection under the 
 treaty. For that reason I have made the suggestions that I have 
 in regard to the amendment of this bill. I had the pleasure yesterday 
 of a conference with his excellency the governor of New York and 
 his attorney general, and they felt that the committee should comply 
 with the request embodied in the joint resolution of the Senate and 
 
602 PRESERVATION OF NIAGARA FALLS. 
 
 Assembly of the State of New York, in which you are asked to defer 
 final action in this matter until after the new officials of the State 
 could investigate what would be for the best interests of the State in 
 this matter, and make recommendations. 
 
 Mr. Lawrence. That was the resolution that was passed yesterday? 
 
 Mr. ScovELL. Day before yesterday. Now the question of what 
 would be for the best interest of the State — — 
 
 The Chairman. Was that passed day before yesterday? 
 
 Mr. ScovELL. Yes. 
 
 The Chairman. We have not got our notification. 
 
 Mr. ScovELL. The governor's message was read and this resolution 
 was introduced and passed by unanimous consent, and I beg to fur- 
 nish your committee with this certified copy of the joint resolution. 
 (Paper handed chairman ; see p. 537 of this report.) The question of 
 importance here with you is that under the Burton law as drafted, 
 as enforced, as acted upon by the Secretary of War, the companies 
 who have accepted the right to develop poAAer and who are now develop- 
 ing power, are doing so under revocable permits. Those permits, 
 even as to the amount of water now taken by those companies, are 
 such that if, in the opinion of the Secretary of War, it should be 
 desirable to take away from either of those companies a part of the 
 limited amount of water which they have, for the benefit of the 
 Commonwealth — of the Nation — he might do so to give it to some 
 other company which could make better use of it. That is the object 
 of the provision of the Burton bill, which has made these permits 
 revocable; and this act, as I understand it. has a tendency, if not 
 positively, to make these permanent pennits rather than revocable 
 permits. 
 
 The Chairman. Since the passage of the Burton act, Mr. Scovell, 
 we have had the general dam act, so called, which governs, or is 
 supposed to govern all franchises that are issued, and those pro- 
 visions would seem to limit the time. 
 
 Mr. Scovell. I see; limit the time for which the permits are to 
 be given? 
 
 The Chairman. For which the franchise is given. 
 
 Mr. Scovell. And in your opinion would this act come under the 
 dam act, so that even though these permits are revocable 
 
 The Chairman. If it is so stated in this bill. 
 
 Mr. Scovell. In this bill ? 
 
 The Chairman. That dam act was passed very late in the last 
 session. The St. Lawrence bill was really held up, awaiting the 
 passage of the general dam act, which goes exclusively to these ques- 
 tions. It was passed the very last of the session. I do not remember 
 the day. 
 
 Mr. Scovell. I think, then, that your chairman has called atten- 
 tion, gentlemen, to a matter which might well be embodied in an 
 amendment to this particular act which is under consideration to-day: 
 and that is what we are here for, to consider the desirability of pass- 
 ing it in its present form or amending it. and therefore Ihave just 
 come to make suggestions as to what you should consider in making 
 amendments of this bill, in order to make it satisfactory, not only to 
 the power companies themselves, but to the residents of western New 
 York, such amendments as would recommend this bill bv its terms 
 
PRESERVATION OF NIAGARA FALLS. 603 
 
 to the people of the United States and the other Members of Congress 
 to consider and pass. 
 
 Mr. ScovEix. Are there an}^ further questions you wish to ask me? 
 
 Mr. Lawrence. I will ask you one question. Referring to the 
 resolution passed by the New York Assembly, do you know how long 
 they want us to defer action? 
 
 Mr. ScovELL. I do not. I think the attorney general could take 
 very prompt action on the matter. I had a conference with hitn 
 yesterday in relation to it, and he simply wishes to satisfy himself 
 that the rights of the State receive proper consideration, because the 
 policy of the new governor is looking toward the conservation of the 
 water-power rights of the State; and he is inclined to feel that the 
 limited amount of water which can be taken in the State of New 
 York for the generation of power under this treaty comes within the 
 purview of his department as to where it should go and how it 
 should be disposed of, and whether it should be to the utmost advan- 
 tage or whether it should go where the other has already gone. 
 
 The Chairman. We are very glad to have heard you, Mr. ScovelL 
 
 Mr. ScovELL. Thank you. 
 
 The Chairman. Mr. Howard, will you address the committee? 
 
 Mr. Howard. I think that Mr. Bowen, being the principal of the 
 company, as I am merely called in as an engineer with him, should 
 take precedence, with your pennission. 
 
 The Chairman. When I asked him who else besides Mr. Randolph 
 and himself were to be heard, your name was mentioned, and I as- 
 sumed that you were not associated with him. 
 
 Mr. Howard. If you prefer it, I could make a brief statement, but 
 I think the ground has been pretty fully covered. What is your 
 desire, Mr. Bowen? 
 
 Mr. Bowen. I think a brief statement would be very desirable at 
 this time. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. J. W. HOWARD, CONSULTING ENGINEER, 
 NO. 1 BROADWAY, NEW YORK. 
 
 Mr. Howard. My name is J. W. Howard, consulting engineer. No. 
 1 Broadwa}^, New York. My relation to the compan}" that has called 
 me in professionally is as consulting engineer. The name of the com- 
 pany is the Erie & Ontario Sanitary Canal Co. Without diverting 
 from the subject, I think it Avise to confine our attention definitely and 
 precisely to the reason AvhA' we are here. The reason, in my humble 
 opinion, wh}" this company is here and why it has called me in, is 
 this: This bill, in letter and Avords, would limit the granting of 
 these additional 4.400 cubic feet of water to the companies in the 
 words of the bill, " noAv actually producing power from the waters of 
 the said river "'- — the Niagara River. 
 
 This company has made long and careful studies, and it is pre- 
 pared to offer to the citizen!- of Buffalo and other cities in the State 
 of New York not only remuneration, but other things which we are 
 now, not under tlie letter of the law. but morall}' obliged to give to the 
 people under the great Avaves of progress and reform that are going 
 on in this country. The company Avould offer to return things the 
 details of which are out of place here. They simply Avant the privi- 
 lege of competing and having the right to bid for the use of these 
 72684—11 7 
 
604 PRESERVATION OF NIAGARA FALLS. 
 
 4,400 cubic feet of AYater. Brie%, they would offer to the city of 
 Buffalo a sanitary intersecting sewer or drainage canal which would 
 save the city an expenditure of from four to six million dollars in 
 connection with sewage and sanitation. The conditions in Buffalo, 
 as you gentlemen know, are serious in regard to the water supply. 
 In addition to that, it would cleanse a little creek called Buffalo 
 Creek and Smokes Creek, making a harbor out of Buffalo Creek. 
 
 This canal would take all the sewage from Buffalo and the mil- 
 lions of gallons that are pumped from the new pumping works 
 through the bathrooms and everything of that sort, of the city, and 
 it would come back ; so that it would be very valuable as a conserver 
 of energ}\ It has a greater fall than the others and would provide 
 more power than all the other companies now put together on the 
 American side. There would be three power plants on the route of 
 this canal. It would be connected with the Erie Canal, so that the 
 boats coming through this barge canal here [indicating on map] 
 divert into this canal and come into Buffalo at the harbor to be 
 placed here [indicating]. I have investigated in Paris a little, and 
 under the Bastile is a canal. Of course, the Bastile has been removed 
 and there is a big tower there. Boats pass through there to the Seine 
 River. Barges about 20 feet deep would pass up to Lockport in the 
 new" canal and into Lake Erie on the level. There would be an im- 
 pounding basin there. The Government is expending several million 
 dollars in the harbor below, and this would supplement it and would 
 stop the Government from spending much more money there. There 
 are other details that will be placed before the Secretary of War, for 
 I am sure the spirit of the committee is now to so amend this bill 
 that instead of reading, as at present, with the words, " That the 
 Secretary of War is hereby authorized to grant permits for the 
 diversion, within the State of New York, of the waters of Niagara 
 River, above the Falls of Niagara, for the creation of power to indi- 
 viduals, companies, or corporations which are now actually "pro- 
 ducing fower from the waters of the said river or its tributaries in 
 the State of New York," that this committee is now willing and 
 glad, this matter having been called to their attention, to change it, 
 and to put in whatever words may be deemed best for the best inter- 
 ests of Buffalo and any other cities of New York State and Pennsyl- 
 vania, too. The words that I would suggest — you can probably get 
 better words — would be these. I would suggest that the bill read, 
 when modified, as follows : " That the Secretary of War is hereby 
 authorized to grant permits for the diversion, within the State of 
 New York, of the waters of Niagara River, above the Falls of Niag- 
 ara, for the creation of power " — now, this is the change — " to any 
 f-erson or comfany trJiich the Secretary of War may decide to he to 
 flie hest mterests of the United States, the State of Xeu^ Yorl% and 
 Bt'tfalo and adjacent cities in the United States^ 
 
 This is a matter of direct competition. The company I represent 
 comes in direct competition with Gen. Greene's company. He comes 
 from Canada without duty. We can not bring coal, power, and heat 
 from Canada without duty. God has placed up in Canada plenty of 
 coal right across an artificial political border. We can not get the 
 duty removed from the coal. That duty should be removed, so that 
 that coal could be obtained by the people up in the cold New England 
 
PEESERVATION OF NIAGARA PALLS. 606 
 
 climate, and not make us buy from the coal barons in Pennsylvania. 
 It is not righteous. I am happy to say that I am one of the members 
 of the executive committee of our reform league, and we are hoping 
 to clean our house and to make conditions better and the people hap- 
 pier. I am here with these gentlemen professionally. I ask you to 
 act upon this bill fairly and openly, as I can see in your faces you 
 will; and after the bill has been considered in that way it will go 
 before the Secretary of War on the merits of the question, and he 
 being a gentleman, both as a man and as an official, would then and 
 there decide on the question by and with the advice of the many 
 counselors he has at his disposal. Of course there would be Army 
 officers, who are always open and frank. When I asked Gen. Greene 
 as to whether this should be open to competition, he honorably said 
 yes. As we may have our discussion before the Secretary of AVar, 
 it is not necessary to speak further here. 
 
 Mr. Madden. Is it your idea that this canal would be constructed 
 by the company that you speak for, and the use of it given to the 
 people of Buffalo free of cost ? 
 
 Mr. Howard. Absolutely free of cost, in every sense. 
 
 I thank you very much. I am sorry to have been so assertive, but 
 I wanted to be brief. I would like to introduce the engineer, who 
 will present the matter in detail — Mr. Randolph, of Chicago. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. ISHAM RANDOLPH, REPRESENTING THE 
 ERIE & ONTARIO SANITARY CANAL CO. 
 
 The Chairman. Please give your name and residence to the ste- 
 nographer. 
 
 Mr. Eandolph. Mj^ name is Isham Randolph, of Chicago. I do 
 not know that it is necessary for me to take up your time in discuss- 
 ing this matter 
 
 The Chairman. You are representing whom? 
 
 Mr. Randolph. I am representing the Erie & Ontario Sanitary 
 Canal Co. This company was organized some two years ago. I was 
 called in to advise as to the engineering practicability of the project. 
 I have gone into it thoroughl5^ 
 
 Mr. Madden. Allow me to ask a question right here. You were 
 chief engineer of the sanitary district of Chicago that constructed 
 the great sanitary canal there? 
 
 Mr. Randolph. I was chief engineer for 14 years and 2 months. 
 
 Mr. Madden. And you were one of the consulting engineers ap- 
 pointed by the President of the United States to determine on the 
 character of the canal to be constructed across the Isthmus of 
 Panama ? 
 
 Mr. Randolph. I was one of the minority of five who decided that 
 type. 
 
 Mr. Madden. I wanted that to go in the record. 
 
 Mr. Randolph. I have gone into the subject until I know, as an 
 engineering proposition, that it is practical. I know it will afford 
 an outlet for this sewage. I knoAv that the removal of the sewage of 
 Buffalo from the Niagara River will be an infinite benefit to the 
 whole Niagara frontier. These things our company offers to the 
 city of Buffalo and to the Niagara frontier free of cost. We are not 
 here simply as public benefactors. The people back of me are not 
 
606 PRESEEVATION OF NIAGARA FALLS. 
 
 willing to give their money to Buffalo and to the State of New York 
 without any return. They are willing to give these things, but 
 they ask in return that they be permitted to take this small amount 
 of water and to convert that into power which will yield them a 
 revenue upon their investment. 
 
 Mr. Casstdy. Right there — a suggestion was made a little earlier 
 that the 4,400 feet might be used for this purpose plus another amount 
 which might be used for sanitary purposes. Wliat is that other 
 amount ? 
 
 Mr. Randolph. AVe would like to get, if we can, G,000 cubic feet 
 per second. 
 
 Mr. Cassidy. All told? 
 
 Mr. Randolph. All told. 
 
 Mr. Madden. Would it be your plan to turn this sewage into 
 the Niagara River? 
 
 Mr. Randolph. No, sir; it would be our plan to take it out of 
 the Niagara River. We reverse Smokes Creek ; we reverse the Buf- 
 falo River, just as in Chicago we reversed the Chicago River, and 
 Ave propose to have Buffalo reverse its sewage so that it will discharge 
 into this canal which we build. We are doing for the city of Buffalo 
 free of cost to the city of Buffalo what the city of Chicago has done 
 for itself at an expenditure of some sixty-odd million dollars. 
 
 Mr. Lawrence. How do you hope to get those extra 1,600 feet 
 froin the present company? Are ihej not acting under an irrevoca- 
 ble permit? 
 
 Mr. Randolph. This is the language of the treaty: 
 
 The proliibitions of this article bhall not ap])ly to the diversion of water for 
 sanitary or domestic purposes, or for the service of canals for the purposes of 
 navigation. 
 
 We hope to get it under that clause. 
 
 Mr. Lawrence. You hope to get it for sanitary purposes? 
 
 Mr. Randolph. Yes, sir. Now, gentlemen, I am prepared to 
 answer any questions I can answer. 
 
 Mr. Cassidy. That goes into Eighteenmile Creek there ? 
 
 Mr. Randolph. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Cassidy. Where does it discharge into Lake Ontario with ref- 
 erence to the mouth of the Niagara ? 
 
 Mr. Randolph. That discharges some 18 or 20 miles away from 
 Youngstown, I think it is. As a result, the towns along the Niagara 
 River have to discharge their water into the Niagara River. We 
 know that the city of Niagara has to use artificial means of purifying 
 its water. Mr. Taft told me when we were going to Panama together 
 that the waters of the Niagara River were so polluted that the troops 
 stationed at Fort Niagara could not use the water. Other means 
 of supplying the troops with water had to be supplied, because the 
 water was polluted, and could not be used. 
 
 Mr. Edwards. On account of the sewage of Buffalo ? 
 
 Mr. Randolph. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Madden. Has the company you refer to been organized? 
 
 Mr. Randolph. Yes; it was organized two years ago. 
 
 Mr. Madden. Has it any money paid in on its capital ? 
 
 Mr. Randolph. Only promotion money. 
 
 Mr. Madden. The men who are interested in the company are 
 responsible men, are they ? 
 
PRESERVATION OP NIAGARA FALLS. 607 
 
 Mr. Randolph. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Madden. And they are qualified to carry out the plan which 
 you are outlining? 
 
 Mr. Randolph. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Cassidy. What is the total drop? 
 
 Mr. Randolph. The total drop is 327 feet. Of that we propose to 
 utilize 312 feet. To give you a slight idea of the comparative use of 
 the water for these different plants, I will say this : We are told that 
 the Niagara Power Co. has a drop of 136 feet. The theoretical re- 
 sult of that drop for each cubic foot of water will be 15.4 horsepower. 
 The Schoellkopf Co. has a drop of 210 feet, I believe. Their theoret- 
 ical result will be 23.8 horsepower. We have a drop of 312 feet, and 
 our theoretical result is 35.4 horsepower.^ 
 
 Mr. Howard. Per cubic foot of water? 
 
 Mr. Randolph. Per cubic foot of water. 
 
 Mr. Madden. How would it work out in horsepower ? 
 
 Mr. Randolph. I would count on 80 per cent efficiency. We ought 
 to get 80 per cent out of that. 
 
 Mr. Madden. That would be about 28 horsepower per foot? 
 
 Mr. Randolph. Yes, sir. 
 
 The Chairman. Is there anything further, Mr. Randolph? 
 
 Mr. Randolph. Not unless you have some questions to ask. I 
 think the matter has been placed fully before you, and I do not care 
 to take up your time. / 
 
 Mr. Madden. How much would it cost the city of Buffalo to make 
 its disj)osition of the sewage if it developed the system of intersecting 
 sewers which this company, that you speak for proposes to give to it 
 free? 
 
 Mr. Randolph. You mean for them to put the project through? 
 
 Mr. Madden. If the city of Buffalo should undertake to make the 
 disposition of the sewage which you undertake to make for it, how 
 much would it cost the city? 
 
 Mr. Randolph. I should say it would cost the city $25,000,000. 
 
 Mr. Madden. Are there any other cities to be benefited ? 
 
 Mr. Randolph. Tonawanda and the other small towns along the 
 Niagara frontier. 
 
 Mr. Madden. How much do you estimate would be saved to the 
 taxpayers of these communities by the operation of the intersecting 
 sewage system to be put in by the company you speak for? 
 
 Mr. Randolph. Do you mean if they had to do the same thing 
 themselves ? 
 
 Mr. Madden. That is what I mean. 
 
 Mr. Randolph. It will save them over $30,000,000. 
 
 Mr. Edwards. How much will j^our project cost? 
 
 Mr. Randolph. About $25,000,000. If there are no further cues- 
 tions, I have nothing further to offer. I thank you for your atten- 
 tion. 
 
 The Chairman. Mr. Bowen, we are ready to hear you. 
 
 ^ Power schedule: One cubic foot of wator falling 136 feet produces 15.4 gross horse- 
 power; one cubic foot of water falling 210 feet produces 23.86 gross horsepower; one 
 cubic foot of water falling 312 feet produces 35.45 gross horsepower. 
 
 Pour thousand four luindred cubic feet of water per second will produce the horse- 
 power scheduled below for the respective heads shown : 
 
 Three hundred and twelve feet head, 155,980 gross, 124,784 net, 100 per cent; 210 feet 
 head, 104,984 gross, 83,987 net, 67.3 per cent; 136 feet head, 67,760 gross, 54,208 net, 
 43.4 per cent. 
 
 The net power is figured on 80 per cent efficiency. 
 
(308 PRESERVATION OF NIAGARA FALLS. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. MILLARD F. BOWEN, OF BUFFALO, N. Y. 
 
 Mr. BowEN. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, there is 
 one point that has not been emphasized, I think. That is, tliat the 
 (Tovernment of the United States is pledged to stop this polkition of 
 all international waters. Reading the treaty, under Article IV, one 
 of the provisions is : 
 
 It is further agreed that the waters herein defined as boundary waters and 
 waters flowing across the boundary shall not be polluted on either side, to the 
 injury of health or property on the other. 
 
 By reason of our stopping the pollution of the east end of 
 Lake Erie and of the Niagara River we will be carrying out this 
 l)ledge made by the treaty that has been made by the United States 
 Government to the Canadian Government. I realize that all of the 
 questions involved, after tliis bill is amended, will come up before 
 the Secretary of War. I am here to answer any questions you gentle- 
 men may put. 
 
 Mr. Madi)i<:n. I would like to ask you this question: Suppose that 
 by any chance the company j^ott represent should be authorized to 
 take the water which is yet unappropriated, 4,400 cubic feet per 
 second, and you should begin the construction of the work for the 
 generation of electrical energy intended to be generated by the invest- 
 ment that you propose to make, is there any possibility of your 
 concern combining with any of the other concerns? 
 
 Mr. BowEN. I am glad that you brought up that subject. 
 
 Mr. Madden (continuing). Any of the other concerns which are 
 interested in the matters involved in this discussion ? 
 
 Mr. BoAVEN. I am glad you brought up that subject. I have pre- 
 pared a report, which I will ask to be included in the minutes of this 
 hearing, and in it we make this pledge : " That we are not in any way 
 connected with any of the interests that are connected with any of 
 the trusts or power companies; " and. furthermore, in the statement 
 of what we ask for, what we ask for is made subject to this provision : 
 '" That the grant shall cease to be operative should it be judicially 
 determined that said company has entered any conspiracy or unlaw- 
 ful combination or monopoly in restraint of trade." 
 
 The company is absolutely independent and new ; and if I were per- 
 mitted a few very brief words in regard to the inception of it, it would 
 be in these words: The subject was brought to my attention through 
 a suggestion of a citizen of Buffalo that the Buffalo River could be 
 turned backwards as the Chicago River had been turned backwards. 
 I took that suggestion as a starter for the promotion of this enter- 
 prise and made a study of it. I called in the best engineers and the 
 best experts possible to be secured in connection with it, and the 
 present condition is the result of thoroughly independent work on 
 our part, and work that has been thoroughly gone through in all of 
 its details; and we know that, not only from the commercial stand- 
 point, but from the engineering standpoint, we have covered every 
 subject. We claim a great deal. We know that we can get 96 per 
 cent of the energy of the water, whereas without any disparagement 
 of the pioneers in this development of power on the Niagara frontier, 
 the engineers who have constructed the Niagara Falls Power Co.'s 
 plant have so constructed it that with the development of the great- 
 est efficiency they can develop their 8,600 cubic feet is at the rate of 
 
PRESERVATION OF NIAGARA FALLS. 609 
 
 41.5 per cent of the energy that is possible to be secured for the same 
 vohnne of water, counting the total of 100 per cent. I have prepared 
 here a chart that shows Avhat this 4,400 feet will produce by reason of 
 its development by the different companies. Taking the total head 
 of 327 feet between the two lakes, the total amount that could pos- 
 sibly be developed, 100 per cent is 126,880 horsepower. By the Erie & 
 Ontario Sanitary Canal Co. we can develop 122,000 horsepower, 
 whereas the Niagara Falls Power Co., according to the statement 
 of efficiency made by Gen. Bixby recently, with the same head, can 
 produce only 42,000 horsepower. That ratio being established in the 
 report of Gen. Bixby shows 82,000 horsepower is the fullest efficiency 
 the Niagara Falls Power Co. can get out of 8,600 cubic feet per 
 second. The Schoellkopf Co., so called, by reason of their develop- 
 ment, using 210 feet estimated, gets 92,400 horsepower; the Niagara 
 Falls Power Co. gets 42,000 horsepower, and our company 122,000 
 horsepower out of this 4,400 cubic feet alone. Out of the 6,000 feet 
 that we ask for we would be getting 160,000 horsepower; and there- 
 fore, on the score of sanitation and the conservation of natural 
 energy, vre claim that we are entitled to the use of the water. 
 
 Mr. Young. Is your scheme protected by patent ? 
 
 Mr, BowEN. I wish it were; but it is open to every engineer. 
 
 The Chairman. Mr. Bowen, under what provision in the law or 
 treaty do you expect to get 1,600 feet for sanitation purposes ? 
 
 Mr. BoAVEN. There are two provisions of the treaty that relate to 
 that subject. 
 
 The Chairman. Will you read them ? 
 
 Mr. BowEN. Yes. The provision of the treaty that relates to that 
 subject is that such provisions of limitation of the amount are not 
 provisions intended to interfere with the ordinary use of such waters 
 for domestic and sanitar\^ purposes. But a stronger provision is 
 that 
 
 Gen. Greene. What article is that? 
 
 Mr. Bowen. That is at the end of Article III. The stronger pro- 
 vision is at the end of Article V, which says : 
 
 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. 
 
 The Chairman. That is 'what you rely upon? 
 
 Mr. Bowen. That is what Ave rely upon for the 1,600 cubic feet. 
 
 The Chairman. Why are you not allowed now to make application 
 under that for sanitation purposes? 
 
 Mr. BoaA'EN. My dear sir, every gentleman present knoAvs that the 
 whole country would be aroused b}^ the gentleman who spoke this 
 morning against any such further diA'-ersion, and we do not wish to be 
 forced to a position of relying upon that provision for the full amount 
 of water that we want. We could not get it if the country were 
 aroused again as it was at the time of the inception of the Burton bill. 
 
 The Chairman. You have a feature in here that is rather new to 
 me, Mr. Bowen. I refer to the turing of that river. How much 
 Avater are you going to get there ? You turn the Buffalo River, which 
 has been as bad for Buffalo as the Tiber used to be for old Rome. 
 Can you use all that water, that flood of Avater? 
 
 Mr. Boaven. I think the War Department would interpret that as 
 being part of the 6,000 cubic feet noAv flowing into Lake Erie. 
 
610 PKESERVATION OF NIAGARA FALLS. 
 
 The Chairman. Have you heard any suggestion of that kind? 
 
 Mr. BowEN. I think that is the reasonable construction of it, that 
 that would be part of our 6,000 cubic feet, because it now is part of 
 Lake Erie, practically, and we are asking for 6,000 cubic feet. 
 
 Mr. Madden. If you should go on with your work, j'ou would 
 ■create a condition which would make the flow 
 
 Mr. BowEN. We would turn it back and not allow it to come into 
 Lake Erie. Therefore we would be charged with that amount. 
 
 Mr. Law^rence. Has your company been organized? 
 
 Mr. BowEN. Yes, sir; it was organized two years ago. 
 
 The Chairman. Have you had any suggestion of that kind from 
 any engineer of the United States? 
 
 Mr. BowEN. No, sir; not direct. But I know, if you are for- 
 bidden to take water from a river at a certain point, and you 
 take it from the tributaries which, coming together, make that 
 river, from a moral standpoint and from an engineering stand- 
 point you are taking it from the river. I advised these gentle- 
 men that if they took the water from the Buffalo Creek — ^this little 
 thing dow^n here [indicating on chart] — that they were taking that 
 amount of water from Lake Erie, which, if you did not take it away, 
 would flow to the Niagara. Now. do not mix Buffalo Creek with 
 Niagara River. It is a picayune little creek coming in here [indi- 
 •cating] ; but if we turn back those little creeks, we take that amount 
 of water from the lake which is above the inlet of the Niagara Kiver, 
 and therefore, morally and practically, we are taking it from the 
 Niagara River and its tributaries. We can not do that. 
 
 The Chairman. Mr. Howard nodded to me, and I took it that he 
 had been to see the United States engineers. 
 
 Mr. Howard. It was not my intention. I was bowing in acquies- 
 cence with the fact that if you did take it from the small creeks flow- 
 ing into the Niagara River you took it from the Niagara River. I 
 never infer anything. I am very blunt. 
 
 The Chairman. Proceed, Mr. Bowen. I beg your pardon for in- 
 terrupting. 
 
 Mr. YoT'NO. Under the law^s of wh:it State did you say you were 
 <)rganized? 
 
 Mr. BowEN. Under the business corporation law of the State of 
 New York. » 
 
 Mr. Young. That is a general law { 
 
 Mr. Bowen. A general business corporation law. that allows the 
 right of eminent domain for companies organized as under our char- 
 ter. You will find on page 3 of thi'^ pamphlet a copy of the puri)0'es 
 of the corporation. It reads: 
 
 Its imrposes, as exim'ssi'd in its diartt^r. are " to aceiuuulate, store, eoiuluet, 
 furnish, and supply the cities of Buffalo and Locliport and contiguous cities, 
 towns, and villages, with water for drainage, manufacturing, hydraulic, hydro- 
 electric, and municipal purposes, not under the transportation corporation law, 
 and to collect payments and rentals for the same and the products thereof," etc. 
 
 Mr. Young. Has part of the capital been jDaid in? 
 
 Mr. Bowen. Only for promotional purposes. We do not offer any 
 bonds until we get the right to use the Avater. The foundation of our 
 company is the right to use this water. Therefore it is not fair to 
 ask for any money except for promotional expenses. 
 
 Mr. Young. Have you any fixed capital ? 
 
PRESERVATION OF NIAGARA FALLS. 611 
 
 Mr. BowEN. Only $100,000, for promotional expenses. 
 
 Mr. Edwards. Do you mean to convey the idea that that is the 
 amount paid in, or is that the authorization ? 
 
 Mr. BowEN. That is the authorization. It is being paid in as fast 
 as we require the money for promotional expenses. 
 
 Mr. Lawrence. How much capital do you figure it will require to 
 finance such a scheme as vou outline? 
 
 Mr. BowEN. $30,000,000. Mr. Eandolph puts it at $25,000,000, 
 but we put on another $5,000,000 to carry the charges in there until 
 we get the water, and are actually utilizing the power. 
 
 Mr. Howard. May I venture upon your patience to say that I had 
 advised that there should be no discussion of engineering and tech- 
 nical details here, but inasmuch as they have been brought in, I will 
 present as one of the exhibits for my client this paper, giving you the 
 statistics. 
 
 The Chairman. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Howard. And I ask that it be inserted in the record. 
 
 The Chairman. In connection with whose remarks would you like 
 to have that go in ? 
 
 Mr. Howard. In connection with Mr. Bowen's remarks. He has 
 read from it. 
 
 Mr. BowEN. May I suggest that as the most graphic part of the 
 article is the graphic presentation by chart that we be permitted to 
 make such cuts as may be necessary, or shall we depend upon your 
 usual methods to have those charts included in the report? 
 
 The Chair^ian. Mr. Fletcher, the clerk of the committee, will get 
 in correspondence with you. You and he can talk about it after the 
 meeting is over. There are, possibly, some pictures also to go in with 
 Gen. Greene's remarks, and the two could be combined, perhaps. 
 
 Mr. BowEN. Surely. 
 
 (The paper above referred to is printed at the end of Mr. Bowen's 
 statement.) 
 
 Mr. BowEN. The only additional remark I want to make at this 
 time is in the shape of a short summary. We are charged with being 
 visionary, because we promise too much. 
 
 The Chairman. I do not think you need to bother about it, Mr. 
 Bowen — not at all. 
 
 Mr. Lawrence. The fact that you propose to raise $30,000,000 
 helps you out a little bit. [Laughter.] That is not visionary. 
 
 Mr. Bo%\T)N. This is a succinct summary of what we say are the 
 reasons why we should be granted this water. 
 
 Mr. Madden. The whole thing is going into the record, is it not? 
 
 Mr. BowEN. Yes; but just to remind you of the points, I will 
 say this. The summary is : 
 
 First. Because we give compensation worth many millions to the 
 public in the shape of flood abatement and sewage disposal. 
 
 There has no mention been made here of flood abatement. All 
 Buffalonians know that every year we have serious floods there, and 
 this canal would intercept and turn back all the waters of these 
 streams. 
 
 Second. Because we purify the east end of Lake Erie and Niagara 
 River. 
 
 Third. Because we bring the Barge Canal into Buffalo and Lacka- 
 wanna and furnish terminals to the State. 
 
612 PRESERVATION OF NIAGARA FALLS, 
 
 Fourth. Because we carry out the doctrine of conservation of 
 natural resources. 
 
 Fifth. Because, by reason of having pure water, the typhoid rate 
 will be reduced over 50 per cent, as has been proved in Chicago. 
 
 I thank you for your attention. 
 
 The Chairman. There is one more gentleman we want to hear 
 from — Col. Alberger. 
 
 Mr. Edwards. I would like to ask Mr. Bowen one question : Your 
 company would be subject to the general-utilities act — the public- 
 service act? 
 
 Mr. BowEN. We would be perfectly willing to submit to all con- 
 stituted bodies. We would have nothing to conceal. We are abso- 
 lutely open to investigation by all constituted bodies. 
 
 Mr. Young. How much water power did you state you expected 
 to develop? How much horsepower? 
 
 Mr. Bowen. One hundred and sixty thousand horsepower from 
 this 6,000 cubic feet. That is 96 per cent of the total energy of the 
 water. 
 
 Mr. Madden. I figured on a basis of 80. 
 
 Mr. Howard. Let the engineer state it. 
 
 Mr. Randolph. You claim that you get 96 per cent result from 
 the total. You get more of the 100 per cent than any of the others 
 because of the great head, but you do not get over from 80 to 85 per 
 cent. 
 
 Mr. BowEN. That was not my point. I was making this point: 
 We use 96 per cent of the head. 
 
 Mr. Randolph. Oh, that is all right. 
 
 [Memorandum submitted by Mr. Isbam Randolph.] 
 The Economic Righteousness of This is Manifest. 
 
 The fact that the waters of the Niagara Elver are polluted by the sewage of 
 Buffalo and rendered unsuitable for drinking is a menace to the inhabitants of 
 the Niagara frontier. 
 
 That this is true is beyond dispute, and the people who suffer from the con- 
 tamination of their water supply are calling loudly for relief. 
 
 The United States Government itself is suffering from the contamination of 
 these waters, for it has been found that the natural source from which drinking 
 water for Fort Niagara should be secured is fatally unhealthful. 
 
 The remedy for this condition must be found in preventing the sewage of 
 Buffalo from entering the Niagara River. 
 
 This can be accomplished by the creation of certain artificial channels into 
 which the effluents from all the sewers can be discharged. 
 
 The geographical location of the city and its local topography make it IX)S- 
 sible to prevent its sewage entering the Niagara River. 
 
 To do this the direction of flow in Buffalo River and Smokes Creek must be 
 reversed, and the portion of the Erie Canal between Black Rock and Tona- 
 wanda must be used. 
 
 The cost of this work will be very great, running into many millions of dol- 
 lars, an expense which the city of Buffalo does not feel called upon to incur. 
 
 Tlie only incentive to any other agency for undertaking this work is a com- 
 mercial one, and that incentive is sufficient to induce capital to invest in the 
 necessary woi-k, i)rovided it may reap the revenue derivable for the water 
 powers which will naturally be available when the work is done. 
 
 The mean elevations shown on the United States topographical maps for 
 Lakes Erie and Ontario are respectively 573 and 246, hence the total difference 
 in level between the two lakes is 327 feet. 
 
 It is proposed to so locate and construct the channel which is under discus- 
 sion as to make this entire head, less a small loss in necessary slope, available 
 
PRESERVATION OF NIAGARA PALLS. . 613 
 
 for the development of power. This means that there will be an absolute con- 
 servation of the entire natural energy of the water. The economic righteous- 
 ness of this is manifest. 
 
 To make this project possible the United States Government must grant a 
 permit to take water from Lake Erie. 
 
 The volume desired by the projectors is 6,000 cubic feet per second. If this 
 volume is given, the projectors will create all the necessary channels and give 
 the city of Buffalo and the whole Niagara frontier the perpetual right to drain 
 their sewage into the artificial channels which they have created, and when 
 that is done relief is at once afforded to the people who live along the Niagara 
 River and are dependent upon that stream for their drinking water. 
 
 This is the proposition stated concisely. 
 
 The Erie & Ontario Sanitary Canal Co. has been organized, under the laws of 
 the State of New York, to construct, without State or Federal aid, a canal be- 
 tween Lake Erie and Lake Ontario. 
 
 Its ]iurposes, as expressed in its charter, are " to accumulate, store, conduct, 
 furnish, and sujiply the cities of Buffalo and Lockport and contiguous cities, 
 towns, and villages with water for drainage, manufacturing, hydraulic, hydi'O- 
 electric, and municipal purposes, not under the transportation coi-poration law, 
 and to collect payment and rentals for the same anil the iiv(iducts thereof; to 
 construct a canal from Lake Erie to Lake Ontario and laterals thereto, and to 
 use the docks along such canal for factories, shipping, terminals, and warehouse 
 purposes; to carry on manufacturing, contracting, building, and mercantile 
 business in connection therewith ; and to transact such other business as shall 
 be naturally incident thereto." 
 
 Provisions. — It is provided that said canal shall be used free of cost by the 
 cities of Lackawanna, Buffalo, Tonawanda, North Tonawanda, Niagara Falls, 
 Lockport, and all other municipalities and communities situate upon the 
 Niagara frontier, to carry off all the sewage and the sewage-polluted storm 
 waters now flowing from said towns, cities, and municipalities into Lake Erie 
 and the Niagara River, polluting the waters thereof, to the great injury to the 
 health of the persons living along the said Niagara River. 
 
 The said canal will be of sufficient depth and width to enable boats, barges, 
 and other water craft of large tonnage to navigate the same from its beginning 
 on Lake Erie to a point intercepting the Barge Canal at or near Pendleton, in 
 the State of New York, thereby increasing the efficiency and the value to the 
 public of said Barge Canal. 
 
 The level of Lake Erie will not be lowered by the building of said canal, so 
 as to interfere with or affect its navigability, and the waters flowing within the 
 Niagara River, now under the control of the War Department, will not be 
 diverted so as to afl'ect the beauty and grandeur of the volume thereof flowing 
 over Niagara Falls. 
 
 WHAT WE ASK FOR. 
 
 The Erie & Ontario Sanitary Canal Co. asks that it be authorized to take 
 6,000 cubic feet of water per second from Lake Erie for sanitary purposes, 
 power, and canal navigation; which volume of water shall be taken through 
 three channels designated as Buffalo River. Smokes Creek, and Black Rock 
 Harbor; 4.400 culiic feet of this amount being the balance of the 20.000 cubic 
 feet allowed under the Canadian waterways treaty and 1,600 cubic feet under 
 the sanitary clause of the same treaty. 
 
 The company within two years after the permit is granted shall begin the 
 construction of the canal, without seeking from State or Nation other aid than 
 that afforded by such cooperation as may properly be effected between Federal 
 and State authorities, and thereafter shall with due diligence prosecute the work 
 to completion. 
 
 In consideration of the grant of water, the company shall give to the cities 
 of Lackawanna. Buffalo, Tonawanda, North Tonawanda, Niagara Falls, Lock- 
 poi-t, and all other municipalities, public and private corporations and indi- 
 viduals situate or living in what is known as the Niagara frontier, the free use 
 and perpetual right to use the said canal for sewage-disposal purposes and for 
 the carrying off of storm waters. 
 
 In consideration of the facilities which it will afford to the communities, 
 municipalities, corporations, and individuals, the company shall have and for- 
 ever enjoy the right to and possession of all the water power which it is possible 
 
G14 PRESERVATION OF NIAGARA FALLS. 
 
 to develoi) from the volume of water wbich it withdraws from Lake Erie and 
 causes to flow through its proposed channels into Lake Ontario. 
 
 The company shall have the right when Buffalo River shall have been suffi- 
 ciently deepened :'nd enlarged to a junction witli the proposed canal to make 
 a proper connection of said river with said canal, and thereafter cause the 
 waters of Lake Erie to flow through said Bufl'alo River into the said canal. 
 And said company may mal^e such changes and improvements in Smokes Creek, 
 Ellicott Creek, and other streams in Erie and Niagara Counties as will permit 
 water to enter the said streams from Lake Erie, and through them into the 
 canal of said company, and through the same into Lake Ontario. And said 
 company may build and maintain at the mouths of Smokes Creek and Eighteen- 
 mile Creek such protecting piers ;uul docks as may be necessary to carry out 
 the purposes ;ind operations of the company. All of such construction affecting 
 navigation shall be done under the direction of the War Department. 
 
 The grant shall cease to be operative should it be judicially determined that 
 said company has entered any conspiracy or unlawful combination or monopoly 
 In restraint of trade. 
 
 FURTHER DESCRIPTION. 
 
 The canal starts at the mouth of Smokes Creek in the city of Lackawanna, 
 and passes around the city of Buffalo northward parallel with the east city 
 line, crossing the various streams that cause the floods in South Buffalo and 
 turning tliem liaekwards: continuing northerly through a tunnel 6 miles 
 long, and crossing under the State Barge Canal near Pendleton, where a lock 
 makes the connection between the two canals; thence generally parallel with 
 the Barge Canal to Lockport, where it passes over the escarpment and into 
 Eighteenmile Creek, which stream it follows to Lake Ontario. One dam wilt 
 be built at Newfane and one at Burt, and there will be three power houses, 
 using a total head of 312 feet. 
 
 The accompanying small map shows the general location of the canal with 
 its branches and their rel.itive position to the cities of the Niagara frontier, 
 the streams they cross, and the terminals of the canal. 
 
 BARGE TERMINALS. 
 
 The terminal of the new Barge Canal is at Tonawanda, and the Government 
 is spending much money building a ship canal around the currents of the 
 Niagara River; the Sanitary Canal coming to the present Buffalo Harbor will 
 give the Barge Canal two terminals, and maintain the value of Buffalo prop- 
 erty now and for many years used for canal purposes, thus supplementing the 
 Government and State work. The terminal at Tonawanda will also be bene- 
 fited by the deepening of Ellicott Creek, making a ship canal of it. 
 
 POLLUTION OF NIAGARA RIVER. 
 
 At present the Niagara frontier drains and sewers into Niagara River; there- 
 fore the cities bordeVing upon Niagara River and situate in the district con- 
 tiguous thereto are subjected to epidemics of typhoid fever caused by the 
 polluted water taken from Niagara River, and considerations of public health 
 demand the abatement of these dangers without delay. 
 
 The War Department has found it necessary to drive wells and distill water 
 for drinking at Fort Niagara because of the polluted condition of the river : 
 in Chicago it has been proven that by turning their sewage backward 51 per 
 cent of typhoid is eliminated. 
 
 CANADIAN TREATY. 
 
 It is Stipulated in Article V of the treaty signed and ratified recently that 
 the United States may authorize and permit the diversion within the State 
 of New York of the waters of Niagara River above the Falls for power pur- 
 poses, not exceeding, in the aggregate, a daily diversion at the rate of 20,000 
 cubic feet per second, provided the level of Lake Erie and the flow of the 
 Niagara River shall not be appreciably lowered. 
 
 The prohibition of Article V does not apply to the diversion of water for 
 sanitary and domestic purposes and for the service of canals for the purpose 
 of navigation. 
 
 It is stipulated in Article IV of said treaty that the boundary waters shall 
 not be polluted on either side to the injury of health or property on the other. 
 
PKESEEVATION OF NIAGARA FALLS. 
 
 615 
 
 64 
 
 THE NATURAL SOLUTION 
 
 9» 
 
 ONTARIO 
 
 ^ FT. NIAGARA 
 YOUNGSTOWN 
 
 GREATER 
 BUFFALO 
 
 AND THE 
 
 ERI^AND ONTARIO ^ 
 SANITARY ^ 
 
 CANAL J 
 
 
 LOCK PORT 
 
 3<. 
 o 
 
616 PRESERVATION OF NIAGARA FALLS. 
 
 LESS THAN 3 PER CENT OF RIVER WATER ASKED FOR. 
 
 There flows through the Niagara Ki^er 222,000 cubic feet of water per 
 second, and this company aslis for but 6,000 cubic feet, or less than 3 per cent 
 of the total amount. 
 
 It is said that the present 8,600 cubic feet per second taken by the Niagara 
 Falls Power Co. lowers the water at the crest three-tenths of 1 inch ; at the same 
 rate the water we ask for would lower it but two-tenths of an inch. 
 
 PURIFICATION. 
 
 To the water available for power will be added the water available for sani- 
 tation, making the ratio of dilution much greater than at Chicago, and the 
 purification much more rapid. 
 
 This canal will serve the public as a sanitary canal perpetually. The dilu- 
 tion and purification will be such that there will be no danger to the health 
 of people on Lake Ontario. 
 
 BARGE CANAL CROSSING. 
 
 Near Pendleton the Sanitary Canal will cross the State Barge Canal by 
 passing under that canal by means of a syphon ; at this point the level of the 
 Sanitary Canal is lower than the Barge Canal; barges will pass from one to the 
 other by means of a lock, 
 
 SOUTH BUFFALO FLOOD ABATEMENT. 
 
 South Buffalo has yearly suffered by flood with consequent great damage; 
 the water of Cazenovia, Cayuga, and Buffalo Creeks rushing down the tox'tuous 
 channels comes against the lake water in Buffalo River, which acts as a dam, 
 retarding it, and causing serious floods. 
 
 The Sanitary Canal crosses all these streams and will divert the water; by 
 a system of gates and regulating works the sur]ilus flow can be sent in either 
 direction, and carried off to enlarged sections of the canal and impounded or 
 flow on through its straiglit channel over the weirs to Lake Ontario. 
 
 BUFFALO SEWAGE DISPOSAL. 
 
 At present the Buffalo sewers in the southern section empty into the Bufiialo 
 River ; a trunk sewer crossing the business section of the water front takes 
 care of the central portion, and in the northern section the flow is direct into 
 the Niagara River. 
 
 Under the ofl'er of this company Buffalo River will flow inward, carrying 
 the sewage now emptying into the lake back to the Sanitary Canal. 
 
 By extending the trunk sewer 9,000 feet the sewers of the central section 
 of the city will be emptied into the river branch of the Sanitary Canal. The 
 sewers in the upper p-irt of the city now emptying into Niagara River will be 
 emptied into the same branch of the Sanitary Canal. 
 
 Into the same section of the canal the sewers of the Tonawandas will be 
 emptied. An idea of this can be gathered from the accompanying map. 
 
 FACTORY SITES. 
 
 The companj^ will acquire property for factory sites, and wall provide to manu- 
 facturing industries located along the right of way power as well as rail and 
 water transportation. 
 
 Docks and storage yards for bulky freight will help materially to develop 
 industrial life. 
 
 The company will have its own .junction railway or industrial line so as to 
 provide sidings, etc. 
 
 CONSERVATION PROFILE. 
 
 The accompanying profile shows the method of utilizing almost the entire 
 head between the lakes; between Buflalo and Lockport the loss of head to 
 furnish flow is 13 feet; at Lockport advantage is taken of a drop of 220 feet; 
 the rajjid fall between that ix)int and Lake Ontario amounts in all to 94 feet; 
 this is conserved by backing up the water at Newfane giving 40 feet head over 
 a dam, and again at Burt where 54 feet head will be gained ; thus the three 
 falls will make a total head of 312 feet utilized out of a possible 327 feet. 
 
PBESERVATION OF NIAGARA. FALLS. 
 
 617 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 u 
 
 o^ 
 
 / 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ic 
 
 X ^ 
 
 / 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 < 
 
 
 r 
 
 
 
 «> 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 > 
 
 o 
 
 ''— 
 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 ? 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 rO 
 
 F 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 «»■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 ll/ 
 
 
 
 
 « 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 yr 
 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^0 
 
 ni 
 
 
 
 
 ,4_ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -i-J 
 
 
 
 
 S 
 
 
 
 
 
 p«? 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Z 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 si 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 \i 
 
 
 
 
 
 1- 
 
 
 
 <o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 a. 
 
 
 
 U1 
 
 
 
 J 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 lO 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 1 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 _l 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 k' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -? 
 
 
 
 . h 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 fp 
 
 J] 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 Q 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 cu 
 
 
 
 
 10 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 «< 
 
 
 / 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 — 
 
 
 / 
 
 n 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 « 
 
 
 / 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 E 
 
 
 / 
 
 t 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 / 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 V^'-^x^ I 
 
 J 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 l^' 
 
 7 
 
 T 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 D ' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 -1 
 
 
 ^^! 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Ll 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 _J 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CQ 
 
 
 -1 
 
 -.. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o. 
 
 
 
 liJ UJ 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 3 uj 
 
 « 1 
 
 L 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
618 
 
 PEESERVATION OF NIAGARA FALLS. 
 
 COMPANIES AT THE FALLS COMPARED. 
 
 The following diagram giapbically shows the head efficiency of the several 
 developments at Niagara Falls on the American side compared with that of 
 the Sanitary Canal. 
 
 The Sanitary C.inal will use 312 feet of the total 327 feet, or 96 per cent. 
 
 The Niagara F.ills Power Co. uses 136 feet, or 41.5 per cent 
 
 The Schoellkopf Co. uses 210 feet, or 64.2 per cent. 
 
 ERIE 
 
 GRAPHIC COMPARISON OP USE AND WASTE OF HEAD. 
 
PRESERVATION OF NIAGARA FALLS. 
 
 619 
 
 POWER DEVELOPED. 
 
 The graphic table below shows the comparative amount of power possible to 
 be developed from the use of the 4,400 cubic feet of water still available for 
 power purposes under the treaty. 
 
 3 
 
 By Head between the LAKES. (Practical efficiency). 126,880 H, P. 
 
 By Erie and Ontario Sanitary Canal Co. 122,000 H. P. 
 
 □ 
 
 By Devil's Hole Developoient Co. (Col. Alberger). 105,000 H. P. 
 
 By N. F. Hyd. Power and Manuf'g Co. 92,400 H. P. 
 
 By Niagara Falls Power Co. 42,000 H. P. 
 
 LAKE LEVELS. 
 
 Lake levels can be maintained by suitable means for retarding the flow of 
 6,000 cubic feet per second, so that the water flowing down Niagara River will 
 be baffled to the extent necessary. The retarding dam shown is a floating dam 
 and will rise and fall with the regular, rising and falling of the river, but 
 removable in winter when ice is flowing. 
 
 FLOATING DAM IN A CURRENT OF 5 FEET A SECOND. 
 
 V=Current velocity. 
 
 K= Coefficient. 
 
 Q=Cubic feet per second retained. 
 
 Q=VKab. 
 
 If K=0.8, a=5 feet ; b=300 feet ; V=5 feet ; then Q=6.000 cubic feet. 
 
 Can be placed in shallow water. 
 
 72684—11- 
 
 -8 
 
620 PRESERVATION OF NIAGARA FALLS. 
 
 PRICE OF POWER. 
 
 The price of power in Buffalo is greater than at inland points such as Syra- 
 cuse. No benefit in price would come to our citizens by giving the balance 
 of the watei', 4,400 feet, to the present companies at the Falls. 
 
 On the other hand, this new company, being entirely free from any of the 
 interests and getting 2.3 times the amount of work out of the water over the 
 Niagara Falls Power Co., will be operating on more economical lines and will 
 deliver power at a less cost to the entire frontier. 
 
 REVENUES. 
 
 Your attention is called to a sentence in Mr. Randolph's introduction : " The 
 only incentive to any other agency for undertaking this work is a commercial 
 one, and that incentive is sufficient to induce capital to invest in the necessary 
 work." Our revenues will come not only from power, but from rentals of right 
 of way, docks, warehouses, etc. 
 
 STATE HEALTH OFFICER. 
 
 Dr. E. H. Porter, State health officer, recently stated in Buffalo that he 
 considers the best plan is to divide the State into watershed sections for pur- 
 poses of sanitation and disposal of sewage; this canal will care for this popu- 
 lous section of the western watershed under such a comprehensive plan without 
 cost to the State. 
 
 SUMMARY. 
 
 In answer to the question, What are the principal reasons why this company 
 should obtain the grant, we say : 
 
 1. Because we give compensation worth many millions to the public in the 
 shape of flood abatement and sewage disposal. 
 
 2. Because we purify the east end of Lake Erie and Niagara River. 
 
 3. Because we bring the Barge Canal into Buffalo and Lackawanna and 
 furnish terminals to the State. 
 
 4. Because we carry out the doctrine of conservation of natural resources. 
 
 5. Because by reason of having pure water the typhoid rate will be reduced 
 over 50 per cent, as has been proved in Chicago. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. MORRIS H. ALBERGER, OF BUFFALO, N. Y. 
 
 The CHAiR]\rAN. Please give your name to the stenographer, your 
 residence, and whom you represent. 
 
 Mr. Alberger. My name is Morris H. Alberger, and I am a resi- 
 dent of Buifalo, N. Y. I am here in my own personal interest, Mr. 
 Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, and the interest of the 
 Niagara County Irrigation & Water Supply Co. There is very little 
 I can say, gentlemen. The ground has been so well gone over to-day 
 that there is not even a drop of water left for me, as far as I can 
 see. It is pretty nearly all gone. [Laughter.] All we ask you gentle- 
 men is to give us a square deal. We felt that we stood in the same 
 position with these other companies. We had our capital raised; 
 we had our rights of Avay procured ; we had riparian rights, the same 
 as our friends had ; we had everything ready to construct our canal 
 when this little legislation came along in the shape of the Burton 
 bill. We have an investment there of over $400,000, and up to this 
 day you gentlemen have not had any kick from us. Now, you have a 
 little bit of water that is coming to you through the treaty. Why, 
 in God's name, can you not let us have it? We can do more with 
 that 4,400 cubic feet of water than our friends the Niagara Power Co. 
 can do with their 8,600 cubic feet of water. We can not do quite as 
 
PEESEKVATION OF NIAGARA FALLS. 621 
 
 much as this gentleman (Mr. Bowen) says he can do, because he has 
 got to demonstrate to me — I am from Missouri just now — that there 
 is that fall of 327 feet between Lake Erie and Lake Ontario. It is not 
 so on the engineering maps that I have been studying. I have been 
 pretty familiar with the frontier for the last 50 years. I think Gen. 
 Greene stated here this morning that in 1857 people walked across the 
 Falls. I was one of the people. I was there at school at that time. 
 
 Gen. Greene. I am glad to have such good backing. 
 
 Mr. Alberger. The wind has a great deal more to do with it there 
 than anywhere else, except in Washington, and I find a good deal 
 here. . 
 
 Mr. Madden. Mr. Alexander made a statement about that. 
 
 The Chairman. What I said was that a number of years ago I 
 walked over to the First Sister Island from Goat Island, which I 
 presume is done very frequently now. 
 
 Mr. Alberger. It is a fact that last winter a man walked from the 
 head of Goat Island to Navy Island; but it was on the ice, and it 
 was good thick ice at that time. As I stated before, there is very 
 little more to be said in regard to this matter. We have our rights 
 from the State of New York. We have paid our corporation tax 
 year by year. We have paid our school taxes and have paid our 
 State taxes and we have been good citizens. Now, we want fair 
 treatment. This is only a little bit of water. The Niagara Power Co. 
 could not take it. If you give it to them they can not use it. They 
 can not use the water they have there now. I will take the statement 
 that Mr. Barton made to the Secretary of War, and contained in 
 the report of Capt. Kutz, that they have not sufficient tunnel capacity 
 to dispose of their entire water power at the present time, if they 
 use all of it. Of course, part of their power goes as hydraulic power 
 to the International Paper Co. The company stated at the hearing 
 in Buffalo that they did not want all of the 4,400 cubic feet. It is a 
 question whether the Hydraulic Co. could use it all without tremen- 
 dous expense. We have had a statement by Gen. Greene this morning 
 about the initial cost of a horsepower. From his statement we know 
 what it is in Canada, i. e., $100 per horsepower. We know what it 
 is from the statements and reports made by the Niagara Power Co. 
 covered in the report of Capt. Kutz, United States engineer. I want 
 to say to you, sir, that I can make electric power on the Niagara 
 frontier for $60 a horsepower, initial cost; and I am prepared to 
 go ahead and construct a plant and deliver power to Buffalo 
 City at a very much reduced cost. I can generate from that 4,400 
 cubic feet of water 105,600 horsepoAver, and I do not take off any- 
 thing for friction or lack of head or anything else. We have not 
 got 327 feet of head. Our head is 300 feet ; actually 296 feet. 
 
 Mr. Madden. How much less could you sell this electrical energy 
 per horsepower than stated by Gen. Greene this morning, namely, 
 sixteen to thirty dollars, according to the distance ? 
 
 Mr. Alberger. It should come from $10 to $12. 
 
 Mr. Madden. $10 to $12 less? 
 
 Mr. Lawrence. He does not mean that. 
 
 Mr. Alberger. No ; a rate of $10 to $12. 
 
 Mr. Madden. And he sells at from $16 to $30? 
 
622 PRESERVATION OF NIAGARA FALLS. 
 
 Mr. Alberger. Yes, sir. Of course that does not take into consider- 
 ation a transmission line, which is a very heavy expense to the On- 
 tario company. 
 
 Mr. Madden. You would have to have a transmission line, would 
 you not? 
 
 Mr. Alberger. Only to the city of Buffalo, a very short distance. 
 Gen. Greene's transmission line was very expensive. 
 
 Mr. Madden. About 160 miles away from the base of supply? 
 
 Mr. Alberger. Yes ; away from the head. 
 
 Mr. Madden. How far would you carry it? 
 
 Mr. Alberger, Eleven miles. 
 
 Mr. Edwards. As against how far carried by his line ? 
 
 Mr. Alberger. About 200. 
 
 Mr. Madden. And you can make it $10 where he makes it $16? 
 
 Mr. Alberger. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Young. $10 to $12. 
 
 Mr. Alberger. $10 to $12. 
 
 The Chairman. We are very glad to have heard from you. 
 
 Mr. Alberger. Are there any questions? 
 
 The Chairman. I want to ask Mr. Cohn one question. Possibly 
 you may have stated it this morning. What was the date when per- 
 mission was given by the State to enlarge the Schoellkopf Canal? 
 
 Mr. Cohn. I would not express it that way. I do not think we 
 were ever given permission to enlarge; but our right to take water 
 from the river was confirmed by an act passed in 1896. The question 
 came up in this way : The constitutional convention investigated the 
 whole subject of the use of the waters, and got an opinion of the 
 attorney general, and as the result of the agitation at that time we 
 thought that the State, as the riparian owner, had a right that we 
 would have to get released. 
 
 The Chairman. Mr. Lovelace, my recollection is that your grant 
 was in 1886 ? 
 
 Mr. Lovelace. Yes, sir ; in 1886. 
 
 Mr. Alberger. Ours was in 1891. 
 
 Mr. Lovelace. The grant of the State of New York to the Niagara 
 Falls Power Co. was about the end of 1886. There have been various 
 amendments to that act since that date, but the original act was 
 passed at that time. 
 
 Now, Mr. Chairman, that you have called me to my feet, I do not 
 care to enter into the discussion, but there is one little phase of the 
 matter that has been mentioned here, and I do not want the committee 
 to get a wrong impression of it. It is the comparison of the amount 
 of power that can be produced by any particular company. The 
 Niagara Falls Power Co., of course, has not the same head as some 
 other companies; but the reason for that is that when this company 
 was organized there was already a sentiment in vogue in the State 
 of New York, and over the whole land, that the beauty of Niagara 
 Falls should be preserved, and for that especial reason the Niagara 
 Falls Power Co. went one mile and a half above the Falls, and there 
 made a large investment in lands, and sunk its pits and drove its tun- 
 nel from that place. That meant that we must sacrifice so much head. 
 That was done for the preservation of the beauty of Niagara, and 
 that has been recognized in official statements of this committee. 
 
PEESEKVATION" OF NIAGARA FALLS. 623 
 
 It has been recognized in their reports to Congress with the bills 
 which were introduced. It has been recognized by the " Beauty 
 Commission " — we familiarl}^ call it that — appointed by President 
 Taft, when he was Secretary of War, and even by the society of 
 which Mr. McFarland is the president. Of course, that is not an 
 answering argument to dream companies, which propose to go still 
 farther away from the Falls in different directions ; but it is an argu- 
 ment as to all of the companies that already have made considerable 
 development and are now producing power from the Niagara River. 
 
 Mr. CoHN. No such comparison was made by me or suggested by 
 me on behalf of our company. 
 
 Mr. Lovelace. It has been stated here that Senator Depew and 
 Mr. Reid, present ambassador to Great Britain, at some time had been 
 directors of the Niagara Falls Power Co. Mr. Scovell, who made the 
 statement, is in error. Neither of the gentlemen mentioned was ever 
 a director of the company. 
 
 Mr. Alberger has just said that in a statement by Mr. Barton, the 
 vice president and general manager of our company, to the Secre- 
 tary of War, contained in the report of Capt. Kutz, it was stated 
 that the Niagara Falls Power Co. had not sufficient tunnel capacity 
 to dispose of its entire water if it uses it all. The report of Capt. 
 Kutz referred to is an official document now on file in the office of the 
 Chief of Engineers, known as War Department Document No. 289. 
 Mr. Barton's statement is printed there in full commencing on page 
 12. It does not contain the statement alleged by Mr. Alberger, nor 
 does it contain any statement from which any such condition may be 
 inferred ; on the contrary, it makes the following statements : 
 
 EXTENT TO WHICH PLANTS ABE IN ACTUAL USE. 
 
 (a) Power liouse No. 1, with a capacity of 50,000 liorsepower ; all in use. 
 
 (b) Power liouse No. 2, with a capacity of 55,000 horsepower; all in use. 
 
 (c) The hydraulic power plant of the International Paper Co., with a capac- 
 ity of 8,600 horsepower; substantially all in use. 
 
 (d) The hydraulic power pumping plant of the Niagara Falls Water Works 
 Co., with a capacity of at least 500 horsepower; substantially 500 horsepower 
 of which is in use. 
 
 The plants named in (c) and (d) are parts of the power development made 
 by the Niagara Falls Power Co. 
 
 AMOUNT OF ELECTRICAL POWER ACTUALLY GENERATED. 
 
 The amount of electrical power actually generated by the Niagara Falls 
 Power Co. is substantially 90,000 electrical horsepower maximum. In addition 
 thereto substantially 9,000 horsepower in the form of hydraulic power is gen- 
 erated by its said power tenants, operating under its rights for power 
 development. 
 
 It also contains a further statement that the amount of water then 
 actually in use by the company was 8,600 cubic feet per second — 
 that being the limit of our permit under the Burton act at the time 
 the statement was made. In 1906, when Mr. Barton's statement was 
 made, the accurate measurements made later of the amount of water 
 required to operate the entire installation of the company then in 
 place had not yet been made. 
 
 Chairman Alexander has requested me to add to this statement a 
 concise statement of facts in respect of the measurement by the lake 
 survey in 1908 of the effect on the American Falls of the complete 
 
624 PRESERVATION OF NIAGARA FALLS. 
 
 shutdown at that time of the companies diverting water on the 
 American side of the river: 
 
 On July 19, 1908, the Niagara Falls Power Co. shut down its entire 
 plant for certain repairs to its tunnel, and for several days made no 
 diversion of water from the river. During a part of the period the 
 Hydraulic Power Co., in order to afford the United States Lake 
 Survey an opportunity to make measurements of the effect of diver- 
 sion on the Falls, also shut down completely. Careful measurements 
 were made by the United States Lake Survey lasting over the period 
 of the shutdown and several days both prior and subsequent thereto. 
 The results of these careful measurements and calculations proved 
 that diversion of the full authorized diversion at that time of 15,100 
 cubic feet of water per second lowers the crest of the American Falls 
 0.03 foot — that is, about three-eighths of an inch. 
 
 The Chairman. Is there anything further? If I have omitted 
 anyone, we will be very glad to hear from him. 
 
 Mr. Howard. You asked a question which was not answered by 
 one of the gentlemen. It was in regard to how much the crest of the 
 Falls was lowered by the present power companies, and how much 
 it would be lowered by taking this 4,400 feet additional. By statis- 
 tics and data that I have gotten together, variously, for some time 
 back, taking the whole 365 days in the year over a period of five 
 years, the lowering of the crest of Niagara Falls between Canada 
 and the United States is just about three-tenths of an inch ; and the 
 taking of this additional water would lower it a little more than 
 one-tenth in addition. 
 
 Mr. Madden. Say four-tenths of an inch ? 
 
 Mr. HoAVARD. It would make the total about four-tenths of an inch, 
 on data as honest as can be gotten together. I can further say that 
 there is a community of interests in this, because the power com- 
 panies who wish to compete to obtain the water desire in no way to 
 injure the scenic beauty of Niagara. If the company that has called 
 me in desired that, I would return the fee and drop out instantly. 
 I want that in the record, if you please. But I think that the 
 scenic beauty will not be affected, and that it will come out just the 
 same in the end. 
 
 (The committee thereupon adjourned.) 
 
 o 
 
fK N 'I 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 II 
 
 014 221 328 A #