* Money Cases, 112 U. S. 580, 598, 599: "* It is true that in some cases, owing to the fact that the treaty provides for or contemplates some further action by the legislative department of the Government an act of Congress may be necessary before the provisions of the treaty can be effectively carried out (Foster v. Neilson, 2 Pet. 253; Turner v. American Baptist Missionary Union, 5 McLean, 344, 347), but in my judgment the provisions of this treaty relating to the diversion of water from the Niagara River were intended to operate presently and additional legislation is not necessary. An appropriate act of Congress might merely repeat the language of the treaty and certainly it would be your duty to enforce by all appropriate means an act of Congress drawn in these terms. I can see no valid distinction between the provision now in question and those provisions of other treaties which have been held by high authority to be self-executing. (United States v. Percheman, 7 Pet. 51, Marshall, C. J.; United States v. 343 Gallons of Whiskey, 93 U. S. 188, 196; The British Prisoners, 1 Woodbury & Minot 66; 4 Op. 201, 209, 210; Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U. S. 258.) In thus executing the treaty you may use any of the agencies ordinarily adopted for the execution of the laws of the United States. You may invoke the aid of the courts, or you may employ directly the administrative officers of the United States, or the military forces thereof. As was said by Mr., afterwards Chief Justice, Marshall, in arguing the case of Jonathan Robbins in the House of Representatives, Annals of Congress, Sixth Congress, 614: 66 'The treaty, which is a law, enjoins the performance of a particular object. The person who is to perform this object is marked out by the Constitution, since the person is named who conducts the foreign intercourse, and is to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. The means by which it is to be performed, the force of the nation, are in the hands of this person. Ought not this person to perform the object, although the particular mode of using the means has not been prescribed?? Congress, unquestionably, may prescribe the mode, and Congress may devolve on others the whole execution of the contract; but, till this be done, it seems the duty of the executive department to execute the contract by any means it possesses." I am of the opinion, therefore, that it is your duty to interfere with any diversion within the State of New York of the waters of the Niagara River above the Falls of Niagara, for power purposes, exceeding a daily maximum, in the aggregate, of 20,000 cubic feet of water per second. If that maximum be not exceeded, the terms of the treaty are, as between the high contracting parties, satisfied. The stipulation, however, that "the United States may authorize and permit" the diversion of waters to that extent, clearly places the subject, in the absence of legislation by Congress to the contrary, under your supervision, to the end that the maximum may not be exceeded. You further inquire whether under existing law you have any authority to control the importation into this country from Canada of electric current generated by water power from the Niagara River. In my opinion the lapse of the Burton Act (34 Stat. 626), which contained the only direct legislation regarding the transmission of electricity from Canada, has left you free to control the matter under your plenary power to prevent any physical connection (not authorized by Congress) between any foreign country and the United States. The executive power (subject, of course, to affirmative control by Congress) has been recognized as controlling the laying of cables between the United States and foreign countries (22 Op. 13, 408, 514; 29 Op. 579, 583), and in the only case in court upon the subject (United States v. La Campagnie Francaise des Cables Telegraphiques, 77 Fed. 496) Judge Lacombe expressed as follows the same opinion, though in that particular case he refused a preliminary injunction on the ground that the cable had already been laid. two coun the close tion Parl worthy, sented, b ment of held in 1 will natu the Niaga for the member, national The P day morn X. Y., a They wer "It is thought that the main proposition advanced by complainant's counsel is a sound one, and that, without the consent of the General Government, no one, alien or native, has any right to establish a physical connection between the shores of this country and that of any foreign nation. Such consent may be implied as well as expressed, and whether it shall be granted or refused is a political question, which, in the absence of congressional action, would seem to fall within the province of the Executive to decide. As was intimated upon the argument, it is further thought that the Executive may effectually enforce its decision without the aid of the courts. The principle has been acted upon frequently in our dealings with foreign nations (Moore Dig. of International Law, Vol. II. pp. 463, 466), and may now be regarded as firmly established. These authorities are applicable to the present subject, and in the absence of legislation by Congress you may not only prohibit the importation of electrical power to this country from Canada, but may also grant permission therefor subject to such conditions as to you may seem good. TO THE PRESIDENT. Very respectfully, J. C. MOREYNOLDS. VISIT OF THE PEACE CENTENARY DElegares. The visit at Niagara Falls of the members of the International Committee for the Celebration of the Completion of One Hundred Years of Peace Among English Speaking Peoples was an important event to the State of New York, and to the State Reservation at Niagara, because of the geographical position which the Niagara River occupies as part of the boundary line between the United States and Canada, and the already close connection between the two countries marked by the Canadian and American Falls, and the close proximity of the Canadian and New York State Reservation Parks. This visit of the Peace Centenary delegates was noteworthy, not only because of the distinguished group of men represented, but because it marked an important advance in the development of the plans for this unique International celebration, to be held in 1914-1915, in which Niagara and the State of New York will naturally occupy so prominent a part. All the members of the Niagara Commission are members of the American Committee for the One Hundredth Anniversary of Peace Celebration, one member, Mr. Howland, being chairman of the Committee on International Conference and Organization. The Peace delegates arrived at Niagara Falls, Ontario, on Sunday morning, May 18, 1913, a Committee from Niagara Falls, N. Y., and Niagara Falls, Ontario, having met them at Detroit. They were entertained at luncheon by city officials and Boards of Trade, at Hotel Clifton. A number of the delegates were obliged to leave the party before Niagara Falls was reached, on account of pressing business and personal engagements, as, in addition to the week or more spent in New York City in attendance at the International Conference, they had visited and been entertained at Washington, Philadelphia, Chicago, and elsewhere. The complete list of the visiting delegates was as follows: BRITISH: Rt. Hon. Lord Weardale, 3 Carlton Gardens, London S. W. Hon. Sir Arthur Lawler, 9 Seymour St., London W. Rt. Hon. The Earl Stanhope, 20 Grosvenor Place, London S. W. Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert Eustace Maxwell, 23 Cumberland Mansions, London. Mr. Arthur Shirley Benn, 18 Bolton Gardens, S. W. London. Mr. James Allen Baker, Donnington, Harlesden, London. Mr. Moreton Frewen, Brede Place, Sussex. Mr. Henry Vivian, 6 Bloomsbury Square, London W. C. Mr. H. S. Perris, 189 Bentral Building, Tothill St., Westminister, London. Rt. Hon. Sir George Houston Reid, 44 Princess Gardens, London S. W. Sir Edmund Walker, Canadian Bank of Commerce, Toronto. Hon. Raoul Dandurand, 548 Sherbroke St., West, Montreal. Mr. Charles A. Magrath, Lethridge, Alberta, Canada. Captain Charles Frederick Hamilton, 9 Cliff St., Ottawa, Canada. Mr. Travers Lewis, 250 Cooper St., Ottawa, Canada. A line of seventeen automobiles left Hotel Clifton in the afternoon of May 18, carrying the Committee and the officials through the Canadian Park and to Lundy's Lane Battlefield, thence to the New York State Reservation where they were received by the Niagara Commissioners. Chairman Dow made an address of welcome. He also read a resolution which was passed by the Commissioners under date of August 4, 1909, showing that this organization was the first to take cognizance of the completion of the One Hundred Years of Peace and to take steps toward its recognition. The resolution was as follows: "Resolved, That, in view of the celebration of the One Hundred Years of Peace between the United States and Canada, which is likely to occur in 1915, the President of this Commission be and hereby is appointed a Committee to consider and report upon the erection of a permanent memorial in connection with the celebration on the State Reservation at Niagara." Sir Arthur Lawley responded to the address of welcome on behalf of the visiting delegates, expressing his pleasure at visiting Niagara Falls. The visiting delegations were of one mind that the proposed memorial Peace Bridge should be erected at Niagara Falls, because of the historic associations and the scenic attractions of the region. Sir Arthur Lawley said, "In peace lies the secret of the future prosperity of these two great English-speaking nations, and in commemoration of the past one hundred years of peace, we should erect here at Niagara Falls a bridge worthy in every way of its magnificent surroundings a bridge that would be free, that would show that there are no obstacles in the way of friendly intercourse between the people of these two great nations." VISIT OF THE BRITISH PRINCE. Among the illustrious visitors at the Falls during the year was His Royal Highness Prince Albert Frederick George of England. the second son of King George, who came to Niagara as a member of a party of sixty-five cadets from the British Naval Training Ship Cumberland, which was moored at Quebec. The party was entertained at the Canadian Reservation, and then paid a visit to the American side. This visit was of course of special importance to our neighbors on the Canadian side of the river; but it was also interesting to us in that it recalled the fact that the father of the young Prince, the present King, visited the Falls in 1883, when he was Duke of York, and that his grandfather, the late King Edward VII, was there in 1861. PLANS FOR THE LABOR CENTER. Among the appropriations asked for by the Commissioners, as set forth in the last Annual Report, was an amount of $10,000 to be used for establishing a Labor Center at the State Reservation. This appropriation was granted by the Legislature, and a Committee of three Commissioners, Messrs. Dow, Meachem and Howland, was appointed, with authority to approve the plans, procure estimates, and proceed with the construction of the Labor Center, which is to be located on Goat Island. The work is progressing satisfactorily, and will, it is hoped, be completed early next summer. NEW ELEVATOR AND OTHER BUILDINGS NEEDED. At the meeting of the Commissioners held on October 4, 1912, a Committee was appointed consisting of Messrs. William B. Howland and Eugene Cary, to confer with George E. Wright regarding the construction of an elevator at the Cave of the Winds, to cost probably $15,000 to $20,000, and plans were also suggested for a shelter house at the Horseshoe Falls on Goat Island. It was decided, however, to defer the consideration of this work for another year. The Commissioners wish to bring to the attention of the Legislature the urgent need for these buildings, and earnestly and respectfully request that an appropriation of $20,000 be granted for the elevator, and an additional amount of $13,500 for the shelter house at the Horseshoe Falls. Deeming it of great importance that a permanent record should be made of the origin of the movement for the establishment of a State Reservation at Niagara, of the various steps which led to the creation of the Commission and of the manner in which the Commission has carried on the work imposed upon it, at our request Charles M. Dow, the retiring president, has prepared such a history which is submitted herewith as an appendix to this report. Respectfully submitted, CHARLES M. DOW, President, T. W. MEACHEM, Commissioner. EUGENE CARY, Commissioner. THOMAS P. KINGSFORD, Commissioner. WILLIAM B. HOWLAND, Commissioner. |