OCR Text |
Show 388 INTERNATIONAL TREATIES NOTES The text of the treaty above set out is taken from 36 Stat. 2448. Ratification was advised by the Senate March 3, 1909 , subject to certain understandings hereafter set out; the treaty was ratified by the President April 1, 1910, and by Great Britain March 31, 1910; ratifications were exchanged in Washington May 5, 1910; and the treaty was proclaimed by the President May 13, 1910. The treaty is also set out in T. S. 548. In advising and consenting to ratification of the treaty, the Senate did so subject to 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. Mary's river at Sault Ste. Marie, in the use of the waters flowing over such lands, subject to the 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. Mary's river, within its own territory; and fur- ther, 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 men- tioned in the ratification of this treaty as conveying the true meaning of the treaty, and will, in effect, form part of the treaty." This statement of understanding was incorporated in the protocol of exchange of ratifications which declared that it should "be deemed to have equal force and effect as the treaty itself and to form an integral part thereto" (36 Stat. 2455). Related treaty.-See the Niagara Kiver Water Diversion Treaty, post, pp. 402ff, which terminated the third, fourth and fifth paragraphs of Article V of the Boundary Waters Treaty. Related litigation.-Suit was brought by the United States to en- join the Sanitary District of Chicago from diverting from Lake Michigan more than 250,000 cubic feet per minute, this amount having been authorized by the Secretary of War. Sanitary District of Chicago v. United^ States, 266 U.S. 405 (1925). The Court said, with respect to the standing of the Government to sue (p. 425) : "This is not a controversy between equals. The United States is asserting its sovereign power to regulate commerce and to control navigable waters within its jurisdiction. It has a standing in this suit not only to remove obstruction to interstate and foreign commerce, the main ground, which we will deal with last, but also to carry out treaty obligations to a foreign power bordering upon some of the Lakes concerned, and, it may be, also on the footing of an equal sover- eign interest in the Lakes. The Attorney General by virtue of his office may bring this proceeding and no statute is necessary to author- ize the suit. * * * With regard to the second ground, the Treaty of January 11, 1909, with Great Britain, expressly provides against uses 'affecting the natural level or flow of boundary waters' without the authority of the United States or the Dominion of Canada within their respective jurisdictions and the approval of the International Joint Commission agreed upon therein. As to its ultimate interest in the Lakes the reasons seem to be stronger than those that have estab- |