212 Transactions of the Royal Canadian Institute vol. x. 



be given by the President of the United States, the position of all the 

 parties on the two sides would have been much alike. 



Better even than this would be a provision making the arbitration 

 of the Commission apply automatically. If such a provision proved un- 

 satisfactory, the treaty could be denounced and a new treaty negotiated. 

 But I suppose there may be some jealousy on the part of the Senate, or 

 perhaps the Constitution prevents. And we Canadians notice that the 

 Constitution of the United States prevents a great many things being 

 done over which we should have no trouble at all." 



The Rush-Bagot Convention of 1817 cannot fairly be called an 

 agreement of the kind we have been considering — it was designed to 

 prevent troubles arising, not to settle them after they had arisen. It 

 may be well, however, to say a word about it here: 



' ' During the war of 1 8 1 2 , much damage had been done by armed vessels 

 upon the Great Lakes. The Treaty of Ghent did not provide that such 

 armed forces should not be kept up ; but it became apparent to both sides 

 that it would be well strictly to limit the number and quality of armed 

 vessels upon the fresh waters between the two countries. After some 

 negotiation notes were interchanged, April 28th and 29th, 1817, con- 

 taining the ' Rush-Bagot Convention,' which notes contained an agree- 

 ment by one and the other party limiting the naval force to be kept on 

 the lakes to a very few: on Lake Ontario one vessel, on the Upper Lakes 

 two vessels, on Lake Champlain one vessel, none of the vessels to exceed 

 one hundred tons burden, and each to have but one cannon of 18 pounds. 

 It was agreed to dismantle forthwith all other armed vessels on the lakes, 

 and that no other vessels of war should be there built or armed; six 

 months' notice to be given by either party of desire of annulling the 

 stipulation. 



"The arrangement was after some delay submitted by the President 

 to the Senate, and that body in 1818 approved of and consented to it." 



This understanding has continued up to the present time — perhaps 

 not always so strictly observed as might be desired. 



"The understanding was, however, in great danger in 1864. The 

 Minister of the United States in London was instructed in October of 

 that year to give the six months' notice required to terminate the agree- 

 ment; and Mr. Adams did so with the subsequent approval of Congress. 

 Before the lapse of the time specified, however, matters on the lakes had 

 taken a different turn, and the United States expressed a desire that the 

 arrangement should continue and be observed by both parties. This 

 was acceded to and all parties thereafter considered the convention to 

 be in full force." 



I say nothing of treaties which have been negotiated and have failed 

 of ratification, or of negotiations which proved fruitless even diplomati- 

 cally. 



