Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 61 Part 4.djvu/730

 INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS OTHER THAN TREATIES [61 STAT. (c) That no armaments whatever should be installed until the vessels reached the seaboard. 5. A new aspect of this question has arisen owing to the congestion at the Atlantic seaboard ship-yards and it is the desire of the Canadian Government to have the vessels in the most complete form practicable while still on the Great Lakes. This might involve equipment with gun mounts and with guns which would be so dismantled as to be incapable of immediate use so long as the vessels remained in the Great Lakes. 6. It is therefore suggested that a further interpretation of the Rush- Bagot Agreement might be made in conformity with the basic intent of the Agreement that important naval vessels should not be built for service on the Great Lakes. This would involve recognition that armament might be installed on naval vessels constructed on the Great Lakes provided that: (a) The vessels are not intended for service on the Great Lakes; (b) Prior to commencement of construction, each Government fur- nish the other with full information concerning any vessel to be constructed at Great Lakes ports; (c) The armaments of the vessels are placed in such condition as to be incapable of immediate use while the vessels remain in the Great Lakes; and (d) The vessels are promptly removed from the Great Lakes upon completion. I should be grateful if you would let me know, in due course, whether the above suggestion commends itself to your Government, Yours sincerely, O. D. SKELTON The Honourable PIERREPONT MOFFAT, United States Minister to Canada, UnitedStates Legation, Ottawa. The American Minister to the Canadian Under-Secretary of State for Eternal Affairs AMEBICAN LEGATION Ottawa, Canada,November 2, 1940. MY DEAR DB. SKELTON: I have received your letter of October 30, 1940, in which, after Ance, pp. 49 4074 referring to Mr. Roper's letter to you of June 9, 1939, and to your reply to him of June 10, 1939, concerning certain questions regarding 8 stat. 31. the interpretation of the Rush-Bagot Agreement of 1817, you comment on the previous practice in this regard, in the light of modern conditions of naval construction, and make the suggestion that a further inter- pretation of the Rush-Bagot Agreement might be made in conformity with the intent of the Agreement thatimportant naval vessels should 4078

�