Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1895-10-23
TO BUILD ON THE LAKES
The Detroit Company Proposes to Con-
struct the Cruisers in That City.
A Claim That This VIII Not He In
Violation of Treaty OBJ
legations.

The Detroit Dry Dock Company, which
the naval bureau chiefs recommended be
awarded the contract for building two of the
six new bunboats, now wishes to withdraw
that part of its proposition, which looked
to the assembling of the parts for the ships
at Seattle, on the Pacific coast Mr.. Kirby,
one of the leading partners in the firm, is in
Washington. and indicates that the COM
pany will, if it secures the contract. build
the complete vessels at Detroit. He holds
that the treaty stipulations do not forbid
this, and he is backed up in this view by
Don Dickinson, his attorney, who has been
active in trying to secure the contract for
the Detroit people. When Secretary Herbert
left Washington for Atlanta, he still had the
report of the bureau chiefs under consider
alton, and stated that he had arrived at no
conclusion, although the fact that he had
decided to send an inspector to the Detroit
works might be construed favorably to that
firm
Recommendations Made.
The board of bureau chiefs. however. un-
der the belief that the company intended to
assemble the vessels on the Pacific coast,
recommended that an inspector be sent to
Seattle, where this work was to be done,
according to the original program. The
purpose Of the Detroit company in estab-
fishing the Seattle branch was not only to
arise under treaty, but also to secure con-
tracts from the Russian government for
supplying number of big ice breakers,
such as they have built for lake use, to
keep the Russian harbors on the Pacific
open in winter.
Treaty stipulations.
Now that the company has abandoned the
Plan Of assembling the gunboats on the Pa
cific the question as to the violation of
treaty stipulations has again been brought
forward. Once before the Navy Department
was obliged to reject the lowest proposal
for building the little practice ship Ban
croft. miniature man-of-war, on the
ground that any naval construction on the
lakes was estopped by treaty, but it is held
that this decision is not now binding. AS a
matter of fact, the prohibition is not con-
tanned IN treaty, but in formal agree
ment entered into in 1917 between Mr.. Ba-
got for Great Britain and Secretary Rush
for the United States and 1t appears from
the correspondence as printed that 1t was
our own proposition that was accepted by
Great Britain. The agreement according to
its terms was terlninable after six months
notice from either party. There Is some
difference of opinion here as to the binding
force Of such an agreement, which is not
really a treaty.
What Secretary Gresham Did.
1t is recalled that Secretary Gresham set
aside the Brazilian reciprocity agreement
without notice, despite the protest of the
Brazilian minister. who pointed out that in
the agreement both parties had pledged
themselves to give a years notice of ITS
termination. Probably this could be done
In the same fashion in the case of the
agreement as to naval construction .on the
lakes, and the question will eventually be
determined solely upon it's merits as a mat
ter of policy, which must be determined by
the President. On the one hand there is
the argument that the government by set
ting aside the agreement may be able to
secure cheaper vessels of small size and
encourage shipbuilding on the neglected
lakes and on the other the consideration as
to whether il may be wise to enter into an
expensive competition with Great Britain in
building a numerous navy on the lakes and
maintaining the same.