Evening star., 1932-11-16
BUFFALO SHIPPERS
OPPOSE WATERWAY
Grain Dealers Contend Pres
ent Great Lakes Facilities
' Are Adequate.
ny the Associated Press.

By the Associated Press.
Buffalo shippers and grain dealers
appeared before Senate For ign Re
lations Sub Committee today in oppo-
sition to the St. Lawrence waterway
treaty. with the argument that the pro-
posed outlet from the CreGt Lakes to
the sea would result in no material
saving in the cost of transporting
wheat. 4....
Several spoke men for Buffalo inter
ests. including a repres ntative of that
city,s chamber OF commerce, joined in
urging the committee to reject the
treaty, which was signed with Canada
las July. ,..
The general tenor of their case was
that existing facilities on the Great
Lakes are adequate for handling the
grain trade and that construction Of
the waterway would be an expensive
project of doubtful value
Charges Misrepresentation.
The flrss spokesman was Nesbit
Gramfner, president of the Eastern
Grain Elevator Corporation and several
steamship lines, Tho said promoters OF
the st. Lawrence project have inisrep-
resented the pcssib saving in freight
costs to the Western States"
"There is no pcssibility of any ma
terial saving in the tot1l cost Of trans
portsticn from tire head of the lakes to
the seaboard by the construction of the
St. Lawrence shipway," Gramfner said
1.-The sole effect will be to permit en-
trance in the ports. on the Great Lakes
Of moderate foreign tramp ships,
which can only create, from time to
time, 'cut-throat' competition with the
lake ships and the present transporta-
ton system,
Grarnmer commended only a small
part of United States wheat would be
available for export by way Of the
Great Lakes, while shippers of 100000
900 bushels of Canadian wheat would
be able to use the waterway.
A brief prepared by Samuel. B. Bots
ford, executive vice president of the
Buffalo Chamber Of Commerce, said
the treaty would lead to the expendi-
trre Of hundreds Of millions Of dollars
upon a project the economic value of
which is wholly speculative and con-
jectural."
sssg, ,eUB,BuO Cost Seen.
The chamber contended the. project
would cost Sg99 600 600, and there Is
no present market for the power which
would be produced.
Both friends and enemies of the
project we're discussing whether Frank
lin D. Roosevelt's attitude toward it
would remain the same when he be-
comes President as 1t has been as Gov
erflor uf New York
As d REPRESENTATIVE Of the entire
United States the new President win be
called tipon to consider the seawav in
its national aspects, while 1t has pre-
viously been his duty 10 regard 1t as a
New York State project.
Assistant Secretary Of State James
Grafton Rogers, who handled the ne
gotiatiuns with Canada, and other ad-
Ininistration officials who were con-
nected with the discussions preliminary
to signing Of the treaty, have the I'm
preston that, in principle, the New
York power authority and Gov. Roose-
welt favor the seaway-in spite of the
criticism offered by New York officials
that they were not given adequate op-
pprtunity to present the New York
State view IN the final stages Of the
treaty making.
Held Purely Federal Issue.
The administration position was that
adequate opportunity had been given
New York State to set forth its views
in preliminary hearings and the actual
treaty making was a task for Canada
and the United States alone, in which
no Ss7te coald properly participate.
.Stat- department. officials, intrusted
With the preparation Of the treaty, said
they were conscious Of no sharp. party
division on the subiect, and felt that
geography, rather than national poll
tics, Influenced the opinion Of mem
bers of Congress.
New YORK officials stood for the
waterway with only one dam which
would have involved less exp-iise than
the two-dam plan. But. Canada op-
,jected to the single dam on the ground
1t would food and endanger much ter
ritory In the Dominion The Canadians
refused, to yield on this point and Pres
fdent Hoover approved the two-dam
project rather than abandon the ne-
got ations
Under the two-dam seaway treaty
signed last July 1S the coEt to be as
sessed New York State is S150,000, coo,
or approximately twice what New York
State had expected to pay under the
other plan.