CHARLES A. MAGRATH, _Chairman_. OBADIAH GARDNER, _Chairman_.
HENRY A. POWELL, K. C. JAMES A. TAWNEY.
P. B. MIGNAULT, K. C. R. B. GLENN.
LAWRENCE J. BURPEE, _Secretary_. WHITEHEAD KLUTTZ, _Secretary_.
HEARINGS OF THE INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION IN RE
REMEDIES FOR THE POLLUTION OF BOUNDARY WATERS.
INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION,
_Buffalo, N. Y., Wednesday, June 21, 1916_.
The commission met at Buffalo, N. Y., Wednesday, June 21, 1916, at 10
o’clock a. m.
Mr. GARDNER. Gentlemen, you will kindly come to order. Perhaps it
would not be amiss to say a word concerning the purpose of the
International Joint Commission in meeting here at this time.
As you know, the United States and Great Britain entered into a
treaty that was proclaimed in May, 1910, in which, among other
things, they agreed that the boundary waters and waters flowing
across the boundary should not be polluted to the injury of the
health or property of the people on the other side. With the
promulgation of that treaty the International Joint Commission came
into existence. Its functions are dual; it has both judicial and
investigative duties. In respect to this particular case the duties
of the commission are purely investigative.
The question was referred to this commission to determine whether
or not the boundary waters were being polluted in contravention of
the treaty. The commission issued a progress report early in 1914,
which set forth very clearly what had been ascertained, what had been
demonstrated, up to that time. Subsequent to that, in following out
the line of the second question of reference, the commission employed
Prof. Earle B. Phelps, of the United States Public Health Service,
to devise plans that might be applicable, especially to Buffalo and
Detroit. Prof. Phelps has completed that work and his report has been
submitted to you for your investigation.
The International Joint Commission has thought it wise to come here
to Buffalo and hold these conferences with you for the purpose of
determining whether or not we are in full accord with respect to the
report made by Prof. Phelps, and, if not, in what way we differ and
whether or not it will be possible to reconcile our differences,
because the commission is anxious to work in harmony with you, as I
apprehend you are with the commission.