61 STAT.] CANADA-RUSH-BAGOT AGREEMENT- June 9,10 . 1939 Oct. 30, Nov. 2, 1940 4071 Feb. 26, Mar. 9, 1942, Nov. 18, Dec. 6, 1916 toward each other. With that clear objective in mind, Mr. Hull wishes me to make the following observations. (1) Number and size of vessels. As indicated above, the United States Navy now has five vessels, all "unclassified", on the Great Lakes. In the discussion of this problem between officials of the State and Navy Departments, the fact was brought out that approxi- mately one third of the national naval reserve personnel in the United States is concentrated in the region of which Chicago is the center, The need for adequate training of this personnel is clear and I am given to understand that even with our present five vessels on the Great Lakes our facilities are strained. A possible alternative would be to transport these reserves to the Atlantic Coat every summer for the customary two weeks' training period, but I am told that the cost of so transporting even a small fraction of these reserves would in all probability be prohibitive. In the circumstances and in view of the fact that these five vessels have been maintained on the Great Lakes since the war without objection on the part of the Canadian Govern- ment, Mr. Hull is inclined to think that the withdrawal of one of them would not be necessary. Mr. Hull would be reluctant, however, to see American vessels on the Great Lakes increased beyond the present number, omitting from this calculation vessels which are "retained immobile" and used solely as floating barracks for naval reserves. The Canadian Govern- ment has in the past given permission for vessels of the latter category to be maintained on the Great Lakes and, it is hoped, would give sympathetic consideration to any similar requests which might be made in the future. It is my understanding that the Sacramento, a vessel of 1,140 tons launched in 1914 and similar in size and type to vessels already on the Great Lakes, is now returning from China, her usefulness as an active naval vessel in regular commission having passed. I am in- formed that the Navy Department will probably wish this vessel to take the place of the Hawk, but that this will not involve an increase in the number of our naval vessels on the lakes. A formal request of your Government for permission for this vessel to proceed to the Great Lakes through Canadian waters will be made in due course. With regard to the size of these vessels, it has been noted that all are of more than one hundred tons burden, the limit imposed by the Agreement. The change from wood to steel around the middle of the last century, along with other factors, contributed toward render- ing this part of the Agreement obsolete.; To our knowledge no objec- tion has been taken by the Canadian Government to the presence on the Great Lakes of naval vessels of more than one hundred tons burden and there would be no inclination to question the mainte- nance by Canada of vessels similar to ours now operating there. It appears to have been the practice of our Navy Department for many years to station on the Great Lakes only "unclassied" vessels that have long since outlived their usefulness in terms of modern warfare
�
