Reference; Your telegram EX-2414 of December 30, 1954.?

I am now able to provide what I think is the real explanation of Mr. Lewis Castle's request to meet Mr. Chevrier in Ottawa later this month.

2. Earlier in the week Taylor learned from George Vest, on the State Department's Canadian desk, that Castle wished to meet Mr. Chevrier to discuss with him the question of navigation facilities to be built on either side of the boundary in the Cornwall area. According to Vest, Castle was becoming increasingly concerned that it would be necessary for the Administration to provide members of Congress with a satisfactory explanation of the plans of the Canadian and United States Governments in the Cornwall area.

3. Yesterday, when I was speaking with Deputy Secretary of Defence Robert Anderson about another matter, he outlined for me the position of the United States Administration on this question. Anderson began by saying that he was pleased to have the opportunity to discuss this question with me, especially as I had been associated with the talks that had taken place in November between Mr. Howe, Mr. Wilson and himself.¹³⁸ He referred to those conversations and said that it was the firm intention of the United States Administration not to proceed with the construction of navigation facilities across the river from Iroquois and that they intended, in due course, to seek from Congress an amendment to the Wiley Act, which would relieve them of the obligation set out therein to build a canal and lock at Point Rockway.

4. The Administration was disturbed, he said, over the growing rumblings among those interested in the seaway here, that Canada and the United States intended to build parallel 27 foot navigation facilities on both sides of the St. Lawrence in the Cornwall area. This had led to some concern in the Administration that unless these rumblings could be effectively forestalled, they might lead to strong criticism from supporters of the seaway, as well as from its former opponents, that the United States Administration was spending unnecessarily large sums of money to build facilities that would parallel those to be built by Canada. Anderson mentioned that Dr. Danielian and the railroad interests, for instance, would be only too eager to criticize the Administration on this score. He indicated that the pressure of criticism against Lewis Castle was already very heavy.

5. In view of this situation it had been suggested that letters might be exchanged by members of the two governments, which would set out plainly the plans and intentions of Canada and the United States. He thought that the exchange might be initiated from the United States side with a letter that would say that it was the intention of the United States Administration not to build at Point Rockway and that it was proposed in due course to seek from Congress the necessary amendment to the Wiley Act. The letter would say that the United States Administration understood that the Canadian Government had no present intention of constructing 27 foot facilities in the Cornwall area and that until traffic and economic conditions warranted, neither government would duplicate on its side of the boundary, navigation facilities which had already been constructed by the other in its territory. He suggested that the Canadian Government might reply with a letter confirming that these understandings were correct.

6. The letters, Anderson thought, would not necessarily be made public. On the United States side they would probably be used to show any Senators or representatives who might criticize the known arrangements for seaway construction, that in fact there would not be any duplication of navigation facilities in the St. Lawrence seaway until conditions warranted.

7. As I implied earlier in this telegram, I am convinced that Anderson gave me a frank and sincere statement of his government's position on this question. From my point of view I think there would be considerable advantage for us in accepting his suggestion. I think I need not elaborate on the advantages for us in having on paper a statement that the United States does not intend to build at Point Rockway and that the Administration will seek the required amendment to the Wiley Act.

8. Mr. Anderson proposed that he might discuss this question with Mr. Howe on Thursday. I have passed this suggestion, by telephone, to Mr. Howe, who has agreed to meet Mr. Anderson on Thursday morning.

A.D.P. HEENEY