The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

THE MARINE RECORD. AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. Agreement of 1817—Reduction of Naval Forces Upon the American Lakes.—By J. M. Callahan, of John Hopkins University. : (Continued.) After Monroe’s return from London, he had several con- versations with Mr. Bagot upon the subject of the naval armaments upon the lakes, and he “thought at one time ‘that they would agree,” but when Monroe put his ideas. in writing and sent the papers to Mr. Bagot informally, the latter would not subscribe his name to them. As a reason, he intimated that there was some difficulty as to his pow- ers. Monroe, seeing there was “little probability of “his being able to do anything immediately with Mr. Bagot” in relation to the fisheries and to the reduction of naval forces, it seemed unnecessary for him to remain in Wash- ington to wait for Bagot’s reply. The reply came soon after the departure of Mr. Monroe. Mr, copy of it to the President on July 29, and said: This “reply” was, doubtless, Mr. Bagot’s letter of July 26, which formally opened the negotiations at Washington by stating that in relation to the naval armaments on the lakes, the Prince Regent, “in the spirit of the most entire confidence,’ was ready to adopt ‘‘any reasonable system” which would contribute to economy, to peacefulness, and to the removal of jealousy. The “answer” which Monroe was to send “by the next mail’ was, therefore, his letter of August 2, in which he submitted the “precise project” which was desired. The details of the proposal were given as follows: I have the honor now ‘to state that the President is willing-in the spirit of peace which so happily exists be- tween the two nations, and until the proposed. arrangement shall be canceled in the manner hereinafter suggested, to confine the naval force to be maintained on the lakes on each side to the following vessels, that is: On Lake On- tario, to one vessel not exceeding 100 tons burthen. and one 18-pound cannon, ‘and on the upper lakes to two ves: sels of like burthen and force, and on the waters of Lake Champlain to one vessel not exceeding the like burden and force; and that all other armed vessels on those ‘lakes shall be forthwith dismantled, and likewise that neither party shall build or arm any other vessel on the shores of those lakes. That the naval force thus imned by ‘each ater on the lakes shall be restricted in its duty to the protection of its revenue laws, the transportation of troops and goods, and to such other services as will in no respect interfere with the armed vessels of the other party. - That should either of the parties be of opinion hereafter. that this arrangement did not accomplish the object in- tended by it, and be desirous of annulling it, and give no- tice thereof, it shall be void and: of no effect after the expi- ration of * * * months from the date of such notice. Monroe stated that immediate effect might be given to this project by convention or by interchange of notes, or _ that if Bagot had to wait for the sanction of his Govern- ment, a provisional reciprocal arrangement might be ‘made. He also stated that in case Mr. Bagot’s powers were not adequate to do more, he would be willing to concur in the suspension of further augmentation or equipment of vessels for the lakes named. Mr. Bagot had no objection to any of the details of the proposition, but he announced his lack of authority to conclude definitely an agreement as to details without first : submitting it to his Government for its consideration of “points connected with the internal administration” of the provinces, and as to the naval assistance necessary for the ordinary business of a peace establishment. In the mean- time, he was unwilling to give effect to a mutual suspen- -- sion of construction, equipment, and exertion on the lakes. Monroe now proposed (August 12) in order.that the ar- rangement should be equal, to adopt the detailed project of August 2 as a “provisional arrangement.” But Bagot did not feel “authorized to make, even provisionally, any precise agreement as to the exact manner” of limiting the forces on the lakes. His power appeared to be limited, as Monroe wrote to Adams (August 13), “to a right to agree to suspend the further augmentation to the nayal force on those waters, without fixing its-:miximum by any rational standard to the number of vessels which might be necessary.” Mr. Monroe stated to him, in his note of August 4, that if his power did not extend further than this, the United States Government would, upon receipt of a. statement of the British force on the lakes and ‘an assurance that’ it would not be further augmented, confine the United States Graham sent a_ of refusal except its candor.” force to the same limits. Mr. Bagot agreed the next day to furnish the statement of the force as soon as he could get information on the subject, and closed his note by saying: “I can, in the meantime, give you the assurance that all further augmentation of i¢ will be immediately sus- pended.” Since the specific proposition had to be referred to Lord Castlereagh, Mr. Monroe thought it probable that the con clusion of the negotiations would revert to Mr. Adams. In his letter of August 13, to Adams, he spoke of the ob- vious advantages of this as he (Adams) was “already authorized to treat on other important subjects.” Adams was not inclined to see any advantage in it. It came in the nature of another surprise to him. When he received Mr. Monroe’s letter he appears to have been inclined to question the sincerity of the existing Cabinet, whose poli- cy appeared to him to be one of subterfuges, or refusals to negotiate, “or of expedients having all the features He was tired of delays and surprises and uncertainties upon this subject. It was a jugglery of ‘now you see it, and now you don’t,’ and he feared that the Americans were the credulous auditors who had been made fools in the game. When, on January 25, he made his proposal “for disarming, or at least for limit- ing armaments upon the lakes,” he was convinced from the manner in which it was received that it would not be ac- cepted. But in April he was “assured” by Lord Castle- reagh that the Government was disposed fully to meet the proposition, and that Mr. Bagot should be immediately authorized to enter into formal stipulation for the purpose. And as it now appeared probable that Bagot’s power would terminate in a reference back to his own Govern- ment, Adams was lead to suspicion that England was sim- ply amusing the United States while preparing her de- fenses. He wrote Monroe September 27 that, “while Mr. Bagot was negotiating and receiving your specific proposi- -tion to-be transmitted here, 52,000 tons of ordnance stores ‘have been dispatched to Canada with the avowed purpose of arming their new constructed forts and new built ships upon the lakes.” Monroe agreed with Adams (November 14) that it appeared that the British policy was to amuse, and was aware of the supply of cannon and munitions of war to Canada, but his recent communication’ with Mr. Bagot gave him more confidence in the sincerity of the British Government. By the close of the year there was more evidence to give assurance of good intentions and growing promptness. Its. disposition of prompt activity in preventing actual conflict on the border may be here noticed. On August 29 Mr. Adams had called Castlereagh’s at- tention to the improper conduct of the commander of the British armed vessel Tecumseh in permitting men from his vessel to board several United States vessels upon Lake Erie in an improper manner. Castlereagh, fully ‘“persuad- ed that measures no less reciprocal” would be taken by the United States, at once issued positive instructions to the civil, military, and naval authorities in North America to discourage by every means such proceedings in the future, and to pursue a conduct showing an amicable disposition. Even before Adams had presented this complaint to Lord Castlereagh, other similar acts had been committed, and it was inferred that they were “in compliance with a sys- tem” which the British commanders i in Canada thought it their duty to pu.sue. On July 26 General Cass wrote Monroe (General Mc- Comb also wrote to the Secretary of War) complaining of the improper conduct of a British officer of the British armed vessel Eluron in boarding an American vessel, the brig Union, and searching her on the strait near Malden. it had also been represented to Cass that the act was sup- ported by officers at Malden, who placed cannon in posi- tion to bear on the American vessel. Secretary Monroe thought (as Adams was also convinced in the case of the Tecumseh) that the British officers had mistaken the pol- icy of their government. Sn THE WARSHIP LAKE TREATY. BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES (A Proclamation.) Whereas, an arrangement was entered into at the city of Washington, in the month of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventeen, between Richard Rush, Esq., at that time acting as secretary for the Department of State of the United States, for and in behalr of the Government of the United States, and the Right Honorable Charles Bagot, His Britannic Majesty’s envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary, for and in be- half of His Britannic Majesty, which arrangement is int words following, to-wit: _The naval force to be maintained upon the American lakes by His Majesty and the Government of the United States shall henceforth be confined to the following ves- sels on each side, that is— On Lake Ontario, to one vessel, not pea one hun- dred tons burden, and armed with one eighteen- dher: cannon. é On the upper lakes, to two vessels, not exceeding like burden each, and armed with like force. On the waters of Lake Champlain, to one vessel not exceeding like burden, and armed with like force. > All other armed vessels on those lakes shall be forthwith dismantled and no other vessels of war shall be there built or armed. 2 If either party should be hereafter desirous of saoue this stipulation, and should give notice to that effect to the — other party, it shall cease to be binding after the expira- tion of six months fromthe date of such notice. . The naval.force so to be limited shall be restricted to — such service as will in no respect interfere with the proper — duties of the armed vessels of the other party. And whereas, the Senate of the United States have ap- proved of the said arrangement and recommended ‘that it should be carried into effect, the same having also received the sanction of His Royal Highness, the Prince Regent, acting in the name and on behalf of His Britannic Majesty. Now, therefore I, Jas. Monroe, President of the United States, do by this, my proclamation, make known and de- clare that the arrangement aforesaid, and every stipulation ‘thereof, had been duly entered into, concluded, and con- firmed, and is of full force and effect. Given under my hand, at the city of Washington, this twenty-eighth day of April, in the year of, our Lord one thousand eight hundred and eighteen, and of the madepene: ence of the United States the forty- -second. : By the President, James Monroe. John Quincy Adams, Secretary of State. ——$<—< rr BRITISH SHIPPING OUTLOOK. | The March report from H. E. Moss & Co., Liverpool, states that since their last issue the shipping trade has been favored with a boom,” but perhaps the shortest one on record. Owing to the rise in the value of wheat, etc., in August and September last, freights from the Black Sea and America rose rapidly, and there was the usual rush to buy or build new tonnage: the few steamers that were building for the builders on account were sold and a very large number of contracts for new boats were placed. The improvement was only too short-lived, and homeward freights are about back to where they were in July last, the net result being that about 250,000 tons extra of new steamers were ordered during the rush, which tonnage has still to come out and to be employed. The builders, of course, have benefited by getting these orders, and most of the yards are at present very busy, but. the majority of the new steamers were placed at low fig-~ ures, and prices for building were not affected to a larger extent that 7 1-2 to 10 per cent. A large number of the steamers at present on the stocks are large high-class cargo boats for the regular lines and companies; one foreign company alone has building at the present time vesesls of this class, the total cost of which will exceed 1, 000,000 pounds sterling. The competition of this type of vessels is a serious matter for the owners — of “tramp” steamers. The output of merchant tonnage launched during 18096 was 1,159,751 tons, being 208,000 tons more than during 1895. About one-third of the total output was built to the order of foreign and colonial shipowners. The total amount of merchant tonnage under construction on Ist January, 1897, in the United Kingdom, was 784,711 tons, being an increase of 73,000 tons as compared with Ist Jan- uary, 1890. The largest proportion of foreign’ tonnage at present on the stocks is for German and Japanese owners. The Norwegians continue to be our best customers for cheap second-hand vessels, and a good many obsolete vessels have been sold to Italians for breaking-up. purposes, be- sides those bought by the English ship-breakers. The value of sailing-ships is lower, owing no doubt, ig this class of property being for a long time very unre-- The quantity of sailing tonnage launched — muttnerative. during 1896 was considerably less than during 1895, and the total sailing tonnage of. the world was reduced dur- ing 1896 by 264,000 tons. - ~,