The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1890-06-24
Dur Lnke Defences.

| Our Luke DeIences.
The decision Of President HARR1soNs
Cabinet not to award the contract for the
practice ship to the Michigan bidders adj
mits OF only one Interpretation. The Gov
eminent considers the treaty OF 1917 as being
so much more advantageous TO the United
States than to Great Britain that it will not
give the latter colorado excuse for putting
an end to it.
It is not asserted that the bid Of Messrs.
F. w. WHEELER L Co. was faulty in form, or
that it was in any respect inferior to that OF
the Elzabethport company, while the latter
was SIS 900 higher The sole ground for the
acceptance Of the New Jersey offer was that
It involved no treaty violation, whereas in
that OF the West Bay City there was pos
sibillty Of such violation.
The extreme caution thus observed Is
shown on examining the language OF the
RUSH BAGoT convention OF 1917. 1t certainly
restricts not only the number Of war vessels
to be used on the lakes, but their tonnage
and armament; and the practice vessel
greatly exceeds the limit in both these par
ticulars. But the express declaration of the
treaty is that it defines only 1.-The naval
| force to be maintained upon the American
ldhcS ny p1dJCobs duu ChS NS'Sih Va
the United States" The vessel now to be
built is not for maintenance on the lakes,
but Is expressly set apart for the use OF the
Naval Academy at Annapolis. Accordingly
| it does not come within the spirit
OF the treaty, whatever may be true
as to the language. The practice vessel,
furthermore, would never be armed on the
lakes as she would receive her battery only
after reaching the Atlantic coast. 1t Is true
that the stipulatons Of the treaty wind up
with a general declaration that mo other
vessels Of war shall then be built or arlned;"
but this phrase Is obviously controlled by
the object OF the agreement as whole,
which was to define the naval forces to be
maintained on the lakes. The words built
or armed" which are now said to forbid the
construction OF the practice vessel, even il
she Is armed elsewhere apparently were
employed to cover the case OF converting
merchant vessels into war vessels for the
lakes by putting guns aboard.
There Is hardly doubt that II n courteous
notice should be sent to the British Gov
eminent of the real purpose OF the prac-
tice vessel, not the slightest objcc-
| ton would be made to its construction
in Michigan. But we must conclude that
the Government fears even the slight
risk OF getting counter proposal to end
the mutual obligation. The treaty pro-
vides that tho stipulation for the limit OF
force on the lakes shall cease to be binding
six months after notice Is given by either
| party to the other Of its desire to annul 1t.
| Great Britain has fleet OF powerful gun
boats, which she could send up the st. Law
| renee and through the ship canals OF the
Dominion to the lakes. The Washington
Cabinet evidently concludes that 1t is not
wise, for the sake OF saving $4,000 to tempt
| her to station some OF these gunboats on the
| lakes, or to give an excuse for doing so.
But the argument from expediency Is not
all on one side. The people OF Michigan may
not be satisfied to find that this ancient
stipulation shuts out their shipbuiders from
competing for the construction OF the new
navy. They may demand in Congress that
| q notice to abrogate 1t shall come from our
Government. II 1t is really to prevent war
vessels from being built on the lakes for use
elsewhere. They may reflect that besides
| the vessels OF 800 or 1000 tons, like the
Petrol, the vesuvlus, the practice vessel. and
the two gunboats building in New England,
many torpedo craft are required for the
| CONSTRUCTION VI WHICH ouCH ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
as that Of Congressman WHEELER would be
adequate. They may further reflect that if
Great Britain should choose to consider the
award of the practice ship to the Bay City
| firm as q contravention of the treaty, and
thereupon should station gunboats on the
lakes, our country would have to take CORE
spending steps, to the great advantage OF
the Michigan shipbuilding industry.
1t is not certain, therefore, that with tho
award OF the contract for the practice vessel
! we have heard the last OF this subject. Our
| Government has already for years contra
vened the treaty by maintaining on the
! lakes the war vessel Michigan, which carries
| four times as many guns and has four times
as much tonnage as the treaty of 1917 per-
mits. 1t Is true that this Is our only war
vessel there, not counting the armed rev.
enue cutters as such, and since an aggre-
gate OF four on all the lakes, including Cham
plain. Is allowed, the Michigan might he
considered as embodying the four. But II
playing fast and loose with exact stlpula-
tions is to be allowed at ALL surely the build
ing OF cadet practice vessel for use on
Chesapeake Bay is still more allowable
Ono thing indicated by the Cabinet de-
cisiOn about the practice ship Is that wa can
expect at present no modern substitute Tor
the old Michigan. Under the treaty stipula-
tions which are thus respected we could not
replace her with any vessel OF more than 100
tons burden, or better armed than with one