711.42157SA29/1271½
President Roosevelt to the Secretary of
State
[Washington, March 21, 1934.]
C. H.: Will you talk with Frank Walsh63 about the next
steps on the St. Lawrence Treaty? & then talk with me?
F[ranklin] D. R[oosevelt]
[Enclosure—Memorandum]
[Washington,] March 21,
1934.
Power and rail interests will use the interval before next
session to organize opposition against the project itself rather
than against alleged weaknesses in the Treaty. Evidences of
activity include:
- (1)
- Security Owners’ Association propaganda against
government in business, especially against public
competition in power field.
- (2)
- Mine workers organization against government
development of hydro-electric power as tending to reduce
demand for coal.
- (3)
- Continued lining up of rail workers against waterway
completion.
The situation outlined can be met by prompt steps along the
following lines:
- (1)
- Quick action through the State Department to begin
conferences and negotiations on possible revision of
certain provisions of the treaty.
- (2)
- Federal Trade Commission investigation of Power Trust
propaganda and lobby against treaty and project. The
fact that such an investigation was in progress would
put damper on propaganda activities. Judge Healy favors
the treaty.
- (3)
- Emphasis upon value of St. Lawrence project,
particularly in terms of reduced electric rates.
Inspection trip to the St. Lawrence in May or June would
dramatize the issue, inform public opinion, keep project
alive and offset hostile propaganda. A later date would
conflict with the campaign and run into cold
weather.
