Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T18:27:43.061Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Trail Smelter Dispute

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2016

Get access

Extract

The trail smelter dispute covered a period of thirteen years from 1928 to 1941. It arose out of the operation by the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company of Canada, Limited, of a smelter at Trail, British Columbia, on the Columbia River about eleven miles from the international boundary. In roasting sulphurbearing ores, sulphur dioxide gas was wasted into the air. When the air drift was down the valley, the smoke cloud containing sulphur dioxide crossed the boundary in sufficient strength to cause damage in the State of Washington. In 1925 and 1926, the output of the smelter was increased and more sulphur dioxide was wasted into the air. By reason of the conformation of the valley and the atmospheric conditions prevalent, it was carried across the boundary into the State of Washington. It was common ground that some damage was caused in the years 1926 to 1930.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Canadian Council on International Law / Conseil Canadien de Droit International, representing the Board of Editors, Canadian Yearbook of International Law / Comité de Rédaction, Annuaire Canadien de Droit International 1963

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Reports of International Arbitral Awards, Volume III, 1905–1982.

2 Ibid., 1918–1919.

3 Ibid., 1907–1910.

4 Ibid., 1933.

5 Ibid., 1973–1974.

6 Ibid., 1952.

7 Ibid., 1954.

8 Ibid., 1954.

9 Ibid., 1957.

10 Ibid., 1959.

11 Ibid., 1962.

12 Ibid., 1965–1966.

13 Ibid., 1966.

14 Ibid., 1980.

15 [1893] A.C. 602.

16 Reports of International Arbitral Awards, Volume III, 1909.

17 Ibid., 1908.

18 In re Regulation and Control of Radio Communications, [1932] A.C. 304.

19 Attorney-General for Canada v. Attorney-General for Ontario, [1937] A.C. 326.

20 Johanneson et al. v. Rural Municipality West St. Paul et al., [1952] 1 S.C.R. 292, per Rinfret C.J. at 303. Francis v. The Queen, [1956] S.C.R. 618, per Kerwin C. J. at 621.