711.4215 Air Pollution/525
Miss Anna A. O’Neill of the Office of the Legal Adviser to the Legal Adviser (Hackworth)
Dear Mr. Hackworth: Mr. Metzger telephoned me long distance from Ottawa at 3:15 and dictated the following memorandum which [Page 937] he requested me to place before you immediately and say that he is awaiting instructions from you as to whether he should continue the negotiations or return to Washington:
“After a number of conversations in which the question whether Article 1 of the tentative draft45 should be omitted was discussed, the Canadians this afternoon informed us definitely that they were unable to conclude any agreement from which Article 1 should be omitted. They gave as their reason that they desired to save that much of the report of the International Joint Commission, and to preserve the standing of the Commission in that way. The President of the Consolidated desires to have Article 1 accepted, the reason stated by him being that his company had spent large sums of money and had used the company’s technical staff for a long period of time preparing the case for presentation to the Commission, and he felt that they were entitled to regard the conclusions of the Commission as final to that extent.
“Article 2. The Canadians are willing to substitute the word ‘nine’ in the fourth line of the second paragraph for the word ‘three’ as proposed by us but desire ‘all scientists’ omitted from the first line of the third paragraph of Article 2.
“Article 3. The Canadians are unwilling to accept the change proposed in the Department’s No. 300 of April 14, for point 1 in Article 3. They express serious concern about part 2 of Article 3 and are not prepared to state finally that points 1 and 2 of Article 3 as expressed in the tentative draft will be acceptable. They say they cannot give a definite statement as to the acceptable points 1 and 2 of the tentative draft until the weekend.
“They indicate that if Article 1 is retained they will be willing to accept Article 3 as contained in the tentative draft.
“Article 4. The Canadians are unwilling to omit ‘and practice’ in two places in Article 4.
“My impression from the attitude of the Canadian officials in our conversations is that they might yet yield in the matter of Article 1, and that they are trying to outwait us, and that if they yield on Article 1 I expect they will insist on some revision of points 1 and 2 of Article 3.”