Seaway Shelved Again

In his Detroit speech last week (see NATIONAL AFFAIRS), President Harry Truman touched off a noisy ovation when he stressed the importance of the St. Lawrence seaway as a route for Labrador iron ore to U.S. steel mills. Said he: "There never was a project in the history of the country more badly needed." The President's words were a rebuke to the House Public Works Committee, which two days earlier had voted 15 to 12 to shelve the seaway for another year.

Seaway supporters talked of seeking congressional reconsideration this session; their chances of success are slim. But there is evidence elsewhere that this might still be the seaway's year. In Albany, the New York Power Authority said that it would resume its efforts to get Washington's permission to develop the St. Lawrence's 2,200,000 h.p. hydroelectric potential jointly with Ontario. Canadian newspapers unanimously challenged Ottawa to carry out its repeated public notices to build the seaway alone if Congress failed to act this year. Cried the Toronto Globe and Mail: "Anything less would be a betrayal of our national needs and our national future." In Toronto, Premier Leslie Frost tartly remarked: "Now that our friends to the south have decided in their wisdom not to come in with us, we ask that they please get out of the way and let us go ahead with the job."

Ottawa's probable policy: Parliament, when it convenes Oct. 9, will be asked to authorize the federal government to go ahead with the navigation project (cost: $500 million), while New York and Ontario develop the power (cost: $330 million). There is one possible hitch under a 1909 treaty: neither the U.S. nor Canada may tamper with St. Lawrence water levels without the other's O.K. Thus far, no serious opposition to an all-Canadian seaway has developed in Washington, but Canadians have learned to keep fingers crossed.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.