Evening star., 1953-03-27
St. Lawrence Seuwuy

l was greatly interested to read in
The Star of March 16 the letter from
Carlisle Bargeron, Acting Director, Ma
tional st. Lawrence Project Confer
ence, in which he commented on your
March editorial on the st. Lawrence
Seaway Mr.. Bargeron's organization,
of course, was formed for the specific
purpose of blocking United States par
ticipation in the seaway just as the
Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Association,
with which am associated, was formed
to further the cause of the seaway.
The opposition which has been
spearheaded by Mr.. Bargeron's organ
ization consists of the railroads who
fear loss in freight revenues from
new competitor, the railroad brother
hoods who fear that a loss in revenue
by the railroads would cause some of
their members to be laid off, the coal
companies who wanted to sell coal to
steam plants and, hence, were against
the hydro-electric power provisions of
the legislation, the coal miners unions
for the same reason as the brother
hoods, the private power companies
who consistently fight public power and
the Atlantic and Gulf Coast port cities
who feared a loss of ocean freight
traffic. It has been a we'll integrated
opposition as the railroads carry coal
to private power plants and the rail-
roads have extensive property holdings
in all the port cities The influence
of this powerful combination is bound
to be terrific on the individual members
of Congress as there is hardly a single
member who doesn't have either rail,
coal, private power and port repre-
Sentation or combination of any one
of these operating in his district. It
is idle therefore to attribute the lack
of success in Congress to the merits
of the project. It is merely an express
sion of the influence of these opposi-
tion forces upon the legislature.
This opposition has been successful
in the past because the United States
was endeavoring to cooperate with
Canada in every phase of the seaway
project including power dams, canals,
locks, channel deepening, etc., In addi-
tion, the total cost to the United States
of the project considered heretofore
was in the neighborhood of $50 to
5000 million. AS pointed out so ably
in your editorial, the entire picture has
changed. The power phase is being
taken care of by the appropriate New
York State agency through a Federal
Power Commission license. New York
and Ontario will put up over $500 mil
lion without reference to Congress.
Canada has decided to build the sea-
way and it is going to be built. The
Wiley-Dondero Bills will enable the
United States to build probably the
most important section of the entile
seaWay on United States soil. Mr..
Bargeron argues that Canada will con-
troll the areas of the seaWay east and
west of the United States canal and
hence the United States canal would
be hemmed in on both sides. Quite
the contrary is true. The United
States will control the middle section
and hence will control the areas east
and west, for, if you control just one
lock or one canal in any inland water
ways situation you obviously control
the entire operation.
am afraid that the handwriting is
on the wall as far as the opposition to
the seaWay is concerned. The only
question before Congress is whether
we will cooperate with our great
neighbor to the north in the control
and operation of great interna-
tional line of communication which
both our countries need. It is matter
of national interest and national Sc
curity and I can't believe that the
selfish arguments which have pre-
vailed in the past will carry any weight
with the elected representatives of the
people of the United States. This is
what President Eisenhower had in
mind when he said that he would
be distressed to see Canada build it