The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1898-03-13
strictly so termed there are but few survivors,
may rot one day DO put into practice By q ma
iorlty OF the nation. M. w. II.


Nv ot hhc
Ono Of the most useful contributions to the
series OF essays in historical and political sci
enco published by Johns Hopkins University is
q discussion of The Neutrality Of the american
Lakes and Anglo niericdn Relations, by JAMES
MORTON CALLAHAN. This is n thorough study
OF tho documents bearing on tho respective
rights OF the United States and Great Britain In
the great lakes. and upon the agreement or
1917 whereby the neutrality OF those basins was
to be assured. Tho value OF such q work VIII
DO appreciated by those who recall the agitation
for tho annullment Of that agreement which
gained considerable momentum In 1890. and
which may rccur at any hour should tue pres
ent friendly relations Of tho two countries DO
threatened with disturbance. We shall en-
doavor to give. In rs brief compass as possible,
n urinary Of tho facts and conclusions set
forth in q volume Of nearly two hundred pages.
1t will be remembered that England continued
TO hold the lake posts until the conclusion OF the
Jay treaty in 1895. and that British traders In
tended to push tho United States boundary to
the south of the lakes. The truth Is that Ameri-
can rights in the Northwest and on the great
lakes werc not entirely assured until they were
confirmed by fleets and diplomacy in the war
Of 1912. BY tho treaty of Client. signed
on Christmas eve, 1914, the lake boundary
and tho Northwest were secured to tho United
States. It was obvious. nevertheless. that con.
| tinued peace could not be guaranteed by procla-
nation. With rival navies recently built
upon tho lakes, there was danger OF
future collisions in that quarter, which
might again cause war with England. 1t
was recognized by President Madison and his
advisors that some effective arrangement
should be made to minimize tho sources OF
future misunderstanding. They saw that II
the pence OF Client was merely to bring about a
/ pernat,nl p N IN In naval continuation 1T would
| only be temporary and expensive. Ncgotia-
tions, therefore, for the purpose Of securing
disarmament on both sides were resolved upon.
Here tho fact should be noted that at Client
the representatives of England had proposed
that the military control of tho lakes should DO
| conceded to that power so as to avert the OK.
| pense of rival ornaments. This proposal Of a
one-sided disarmament probably suggested to
the United States Commissioners the idea OF
making 1t mutual; but their instructions at
that time did not permit them to make
such an offer. After the peace, how
ever. 1t became clear that mutual dis
armament was the only assurance against
collision. Thus 1t came to pass that, with in
structions from the United States Government,
John Quincy Adams proposed to Lord Castle
reagh at London in January. 1916. that some
arrangement should be made by the two Gov
ernments with O view Of a%vertinG the threat
encd evil of rival naval forces upon the lakes.
After a debate In Parliament the British Min
istry decided so far to accept the proposal as
to avoid anything like a contention between
the two parties" Some months later James
Monroe. Secretary OF State. submitted to the
English Minister at Washington the precise
project" which provided for limiting the
force on the lakes to ono vessel on Lake
Champloin. one on Lake Ontario. and two on
the upper lakes. each to be Of 100 tons burden.
and to be equipped with one eighteen.pound
cannon. This force was to be restricted in
its duty to the protection Of tho revenue laws.
the transportation Of troops and goods. and such
other services as would not interfere with the
armed vessels of the other party. On Jan. II
Lord Castlereegh announced that England was
ready to accedo to this proposal. The reciprocal
and definite reduction OF the naval forces on the
lakes did not occur, however. until the GLOWING
year, after Monroe had become President. 1t
was then completed by the exchange of notes
between the English Minister at Washington
and Mr.. Rush, who was acting as Secretary of
State until Mr.. Adams should arrive from Lon
don. The agreement became effective at once,
although there is no evidence that Great Britain
gava It, the formality Of a treaty. In 1s6l-65
both Seward and Palmerston spoke of the ar.
rangement as an informal one. Formal or
informal. the agreement provided that all naval
vessels. except the four allowed by the agreement
with restricted dutiesl. should be forthwith dis
mantlod. and that no other vessels of war should
be built or arme;i upon the lakes: but it was
also stipulated that either party could ~abrogate
the agreement by giving six months notice.
The arrangement made no provision with regard
to revenue vessels. but both parties seem now
to consider that thcs, are not a part of tho navy.
and are not included under the limitations of
the agreement. The original intention OF Prcsi-
| Ipnt Madison Nyaa m re6uCa GUITARS IN tho
minimum OF size and force. II allowed at nil"
In 1857 and 1858 the British Government evil
IDENTIFY considered that revenue cutters came
within the limitations of tho agreement. In
1864 Mr.. Seward was mot prepared to acknowl.
edge that It. was the purpose of the agreement to
restrict the armamen or tonnage of vessels de-
signed exclusively for the revenue service" In
1865. however. Mr.. Seward, In reply to O note
from the British Minister concerning such yes.
sells, stated that their armament. if!any, would
not be allowed to exceed the limits stipulated In
the conventional arrangements"
1t is pointed out by Mr.. Callahan that ques-
lions have arisen at different times as to whether
the agreement applies to all OF the great lakes.
In 1864 the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury
was not sure that It included Lake Erie as one
of tho "uppcr lakes" When tho military canal
from the Mississippi to Lake Michigan was pro-
posed to Congress during the civil war there
was some DOUBT Whcther THIS lake Came under
the provisions of the agreement of 1917. Not
only has the agreement been treated as apply.
ing to all the lakes, but, in the judgment of the
author OF this book, it would probably be
interpreted as applicable also to all the
streams which how into tho basins includ-
cd In its provisions. BY the construction
which has boon placed upon the clause. mo
other vessels of war shall there be built or
armed" the Navy Department has refused to
accept the bids OF lake builders OF naval vessels
which were to be constructed for use on the
ocean. These bids could have been accepted
under the liberal Interpretation that q hull
would not be q war vessel until after she had
received her armor and guns. But 1t has
been thought best not to interpret the treaty
thus. To Mr.. Callahan it seems probable that
the Navy Department may have been guided In
Its action chiefly by the fact that the vessels,
after being built. would have to pass through q
long stretch OF exclusively Canadian waters in
order to reach the sea. Permission has been