Evening star., 1941-03-30
Associated Press.

ger. Who can say, with assurance, that
we shall not need for our defense or
peaceful pursuits every possible ship
building resource, particularly those
that exist and may be developed IN the
interior of the country?
"I,he need for the seaway is coupled
with an increasing demand for power.
Already Cur defense industries in the
Northeast have been required to import
huge blocks of electric power from
Canada They are asking greater i'm
ports and Canada can agree to supply
this power only temporarily A new
source OF cheap power for national de-
fense must be developed Immediately"
Opposition Is Strong.
The present agreement faces strong
opposition on Capitol Hill and elsewhere
and its foes are challenging most of the
arguments marshaled by administration
spokesmep in urging immediate con-
struction of the st. Lawrence project as
a joint Canadian-American defense en-
terprise. The major points stressed by
the opposition are the following:
First, that the seaway cannot be JUS
titled as a national defense measure, for
the reason that its completion will re-
quire several years, and by that time the
war in Europe will have ended, either
through negotiated peace or by Brit
ish or an axis victory. Critics point out
that in time of war the waterway could
easily be put out of commission by
enemy bombers, or fifth columnists and
saboteurs, and that war vessels and
merchant vessels, navigating its narrow
channels, would be similarly vulnerable
to attacks from the air.
Second. that construction of the prof.
ect at this time would divert large sums
of money and a vast amount of labor
from the production of war materials
urgently needed by Great Britain and
other democracies resisting totalitarian
aggression and by our own defense pro-
gram.
Third, that navigation on the proposed
seaway, because Of ice, would be possible
for only about seven months year. a
fact which would initiate against its use
and the development of Great Lakes
shipyards.
Cheaper Power Available.
Fourth, that if additional power is
really needed it can be obtained more
quickly and more cheaply by the con-
struction of steam plants than by build.
ing hydroelectric works in the Inter.
national Rapids section. Opponents
argue that the power projects would in
| jure private utility companies.
Fifth, that the seaway would divert
a large amount of traffic from American
railroads. and other transportation
agencies, thus striking a heavy blow
at one OF the Nations basic industries
One-fourth of the assets of American
| life insurance companies it is pointed
out are invested in railroad and public
utility securities, many of which will be
adversely affected by construction of the
| ST. Lawrence waterway. Life insurance
policyholders will therefore suffer 8
| direct loss, opponents of the project
warn.
! Sixth that the seaway would injure
seaboard ports and waterways thus Gre
ating a loss of employment for which
| there would be no compensating gains.
Seventh, that only small part of the
| population of the United States would
derive any real benefit from the water
way, while the country as whole, in
Guiding sections injured. would be re-
quired to contribute to the construction
costs.
Eighth. that only 46 per cent of the
worlds merchant ships (excluding vessels
of less than 1000 tons) could use the
proposed channel when fully loaded
Because of this fact and the time re.
quired for round trip from Montreal to
Great Lakes ports, opponents assert that
the seaway would have far more lin
tied use by ocean freighters than claimed
by supporters Of the proposal.