61 STAT.] CANADA-RUSH-BAGOT AGREEMENT June 9.10, 1939, Oct. 30, Nor. 2 1940 4069 61 STT.] CANADA--RUSH-BAGOT AGREEMENT-.... Feb. 26, Mar. 9, 1942, Nov. 18, Dec. 6, 1)46 Understandings between the United States of America and Canada June 9,10 1939, Oct. 2, 1940, regarding the PIush-Bagot Agreement of April 28 and 29, 1817, respect- Feb. 26 , Mar. 9, ing naval forces on the American Lakes. Effected by exchanges of 194o18 Dec notes signed at Ottawa June 9 and 10, 1939, entered into force June iT. I . A. s. s836] 10, 1939; signed at Ottawa October 30 and November 2, 1940, entered into force November 2, 194/0; signed at Ottawa February 26 and March 9, 1942, entered into force March 9, 1942; signed at Washington November 18 and December 6, 1946, entered into force December 6, 1946. CONSTRUCTION OF NAVAL VESSELS ON THE GREAT LAKES Exchange of notes signed at Ottawa June 9 and 10, 1939-Entered into force June 10, 1939 The American Minister to the Canadian Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs AMERICAN LEGATION OTTAWA, CANADA. June 9, 1939. MY DEAR DR. SKELTON: In a confidential letter addressed to the Secretary of State on January 31, 1939,[ 1] Admiral Leahy, the Acting Secretary of the Navy, raised certain questions regarding the Rush-Bagot Agreement of 1817. Among other things, Admiral Leahy requested the views 8 Stat. 231 . of Mr. Hull concerning the mounting of two 4-inch guns on each of the American naval vessels on the Great Lakes, to be used in firing target practice in connection with the training of naval reserves. He inquired, if this was considered improper, concerning the possibility of modifying the Rush-Bagot Agreement to permit this practice. The question was subsequently the subject of informal conversations between officers of our State and Navy Departments. After careful consideration of the problem, Mr. Hull is inclined to the opinion that a modification of the Rush-Bagot Agreement would be undesirable at this time. It is clear from a study of the documents relating to the negotiation of the Agreement and its early history that the objective of the negotiators was to provide a solution of an immediate and urgent problem arising out of the war of 1812 and the terms of the Agreement themselves support the view that its indefinite continuation in force was not anticipated. Consequently, from a naval standpoint, its provisions have long been out of date, but in spite of numerous vicissitudes the Agreement itself has survived un- changed for more than one hundred and twenty years and, with the passage of time, has assumed a symbolic importance in the eyes of [Not printed.]
�
