eminently proper to appoint committees to consider the different divisions in this programme. But as the Conference has already adopted a resolution to take up but one division at a time for discussion, I do not think it is desirable. In this case of lights and sailing rules, it seems to me that it is impracticable to divide the subjects, because they are so connected and interwoven that at every point every individual must have the same subject in mind. That is to say, if we should divide the subject we would find that the different committees were working at cross purposes. The division which we are considering does not lend itself properly to a division which could be considered by committees. In view of the fact that we have decided to consider this division by itself, it seems to me that it is eminently proper that we should consider it in Conference and not in committees.

My friends remind me that the rule laid down in Crocker on Parlia mentary Law is a permissive rule, and we are not obliged to divide into committees in considering this question. It provides for committees, but we are not necessarily to be divided into committees.

The PRESIDENT. The Chair would state that some experiments were made by some of the naval vessels of the United States during the past summer upon running lights and fog-signals, which are now being printed and will be presented to the Conference in a few days. There were some plates connected with them, which will not be available for a few days. As that is very pertinent to the subject we are now discussing, I would suggest that no positive action be taken on this rule until these reports are available. There seems to be no disposition on the part of any delegate to suggest anything with regard to a change of lights. When this subject comes before them in the shape of experi ment, perhaps there will be some suggestions on that subject. It is rather premature to dispose of a subject as important as the one we are now considering on a snap judgment.

The Chair does not understand that there has been any motion made to appoint committees. It was merely a suggestion.

The motion before the Conference is that made by the delegate from Siam, to proceed to the consideration of Article 3.

Mr. GOODRICH (United States). Mr. President, the amendments to Article 2 are to be printed and presented to-morrow?

The PRESIDENT. They are.

The motion to proceed to the consideration of Article 3 was put by the Chair, and was carried.

The PRESIDET. The motion is carried. Article 3 is now under consideration. The Secretary will please read Article 3:

"LIGHTS FOR STEAMERS.

"ARTICLE 3. A sea-going steam-ship, when under way, shall carry"(a) On or in front of the foremast, at a height above the hull of not less than twenty feet, and if the breadth of the ship exceeds twenty S. Ex. 53- -2

feet, then at a height above the hull not less than such breadth, a bright white light; so constructed as to show a uniform and unbroken light over an arc of the horizon of twenty points of the compass, so fixed as to throw the light ten points on each side of the ship, namely, from right ahead to two points abaft the beam on either side, and of such a character as to be visible on a dark night, with a clear atmosphere, at a distance of at least five miles.

"(b) On the starboard side, a green light, so constructed as to show a uniform and unbroken light over an arc of the horizon of ten points of the compass, so fixed as to throw the light from right ahead to two points abaft the beam on the starboard side, and of such a character as to be visible on a dark night, with a clear atmosphere, at a distance of at least two miles.

"(c) On the port side, a red light, so constructed as to show a uniform and unbroken light over an arc of the horizon of ten points of the compass, so fixed as to throw the light from right ahead to two points abaft the beam on the port side, and of such a character as to be visible on a dark night, with a clear atmosphere, at a distance of at least two miles.

66

"(d) The said green and red side-lights shall be fitted with inboard screens projecting at least three feet forward from the light so as to prevent these lights from being seen across the bow."

Captain MALMBERG (Sweden). Mr. President, the beginning of this section mentions sea going steam-ships when under way. The learned delegate from the United States mentioned, in regard to Article 1, that the word "steam ship" should be changed to "steam-vessel." Now here in these rules appears "sea-going steam-ships." Taking that article literally it would not apply to steamers going on lakes or rivers or such waters. In the translation of these articles into the Swedish it reads steamers, all steamers, without exception, have to carry such and such lights. In our rules the word "sea-going" is omitted and the rules apply to all steamers. I should think, in framing the article in English, the word "sea-going" should be omitted, so that it would have reference to every steamer.

The PRESIDENT. Will you put that in the form of an amendment? Mr. GOODRICH (United States). Mr. President, I think perhaps it is proper at this juncture, when we are all seeking light, for each one of us to indicate the differences from the English rules, which I suggest that we take as a standard. I think that it may not be uninteresting to the delegates to know precisely how the American law stands. Up to 1840 there were no enunciated rules of the sea. I believe the first of the English acts was in 1854. There was a rule in 1840, I believe, one single rule, about the direction in which vessels should pass, and then in the "merchant shipping act" in 1863 there were other rules which became the rudiments of the present rules. In 1864-and here considerable confusion will arise unless it is distinctly understood-in 1864 the United States adopted practically the English rules. These remained in that condition until England adopted the rules of 1879; but it was not until 1885 that the United States adopted these rules. When the

United States adopted them they adopted them with some little differences, and these are the differences to which I adverted in speaking of the printing of the English and American rules.

The act of Congress provides that the following "revised international rules and regulations for preventing collisions at sea shall be followed in the navigation of all public and private vessels of the United States upon the high seas and in all coast waters of the United States except such as are otherwise provided for."

When Congress came to the final clause of the act it adopted these international regulations. It provided for the repeal of all laws and parts of laws inconsistent with the revised international regulations for preventing collisions at sea, and that they "shall be followed in the navigation of all public and private vessels of the United States in the high seas and in all coast waters of the United States except such as are otherwise provided for." It then added an exception as to the navigation of such vessels within the harbors, lakes, and inland waters of the United States. Thus the members of the Conference will see that the revised international rules and regulations, as adopted by Eng land, with the amendments I have suggested, became the American law upon the high seas and coast waters; yet the old regulations of 1864 continue in force as to harbors, bays, and inland waters. Let me state here a curious thing, which I was telling Delegate Hall about the other night; it is a curious circumstance resulting from the differences in the code. I think that in the regulations of Great Britain of 1863 there was no provision for a stern light. Congress, some time later, I think in March of 1871, passed an act providing that there should be a light shown by a sailing vessel to an approaching steamer upon any point or quarter upon which the vessel was approaching.

The delegates will see at once that the new regulation provided for showing a light to an overtaking vessel only in inland waters; but as to the high seas that rule was not in force. In other words, a vessel proceeding from the harbor of New York, bound for sea, if she were in the harbor, bay, or inland water of the United States, was governed by the new rule, and was required to show a light to an approaching steamer; but when she crossed that imaginary line which divides the harbor or bay of New York from the great sea, she was to follow the laws of Great Britain, and was not bound to show from her stern a white light or a flare-up light. Of course that is utter absurdity; but I have given this as a suggestion that you, gentlemen of the other powers, may see where you can find our legislation, and wherein it differs from the English legislation, that you may know the difficulties under which we labor in this country. I do not quite comprehend the force and effect of the Thames Act, as to whether it is limited to the Thames River, or whether it covers the internal waters of Great Britain; but here we have one system of rules for internal waters and one system of rules for the sea and

coast.

Mr. HALL (Great Britain). Mr. President, I hope I shall not be wasting the time of the Conference if I make a few observations on what has fallen from the learned delegate of the United States. In 1862, after arrangements and negotiations had taken place between England and France, these two countries agreed to rules which were adopted by England in the shape of an act of Parliament in 1862. These were the first international regulations. They came into force in the year 1863, and by the month of May, 1886, a very large number of the powers adopted them. Among them, I find they were adopted by the United States. I should state that in these rules, although it is true there was no rule as to a light being shown to an overtaking vessel, there was a rule that the overtaking vessel was to keep out of the way of the vessel she was overtaking. Now, the learned delegate for the United States has referred here to local rules. It is true that it is sometimes difficult for an officer in charge of a vessel, unless he is well posted in his information and knowledge, to know how far his actions should be governed by local rules, and how far by the rules at sea; but in all cases in our inland waters the scope, or rather the locus, in which these local rules are to apply is laid down. I am speaking from memory only, but I think I am correct. The Thames rules apply not only to the whole port of London, but to the whole of the river Thames down to a fixed point, which is laid down, so that an officer in charge, if he has a copy of the Thames rules, has only to refer to his chart to see whether or not he is at sea or whether he is within the waters prescribed for by the Thames regulations. Many members of the Conference are aware that we have local rules for a great many of the rivers and inland waters, and of course within these waters those rules apply.

Captain MALMBERG (Sweden). Mr. President, I understand perfectly well what the learned delegate says, but we have in a good many parts of the world, waters where traffic is kept up by sea going vessels or by coasting steamers. I may take for example, the Sound between Denmark and Sweden. There is an immense traffic kept up by small steamers that do not go to sea at all, and if these rules only apply to sea-going steamers, those steamers keeping up the traffic between these respective countries should be excepted from complying with the international rules laid down. As I understand it, they only apply to steamers at sea; but the sea is not exactly the high sea. In Sweden we have a large expanse of coast, from 60 to 70 or 80 miles, and every vessel coming from the sea there is a coasting vessel. That coasting vessel would not be obliged to follow the international rules. I think that is a great mistake, and that every vessel which meets any sea-going vessel should carry lights and have regulations of the same description as the sea-going vessels. That is the reason why I want the words "sea-going" taken out, and have the rule apply to all steamers in every country. Any country which has inland waters and rivers will have to provide special rules for such navigation.

The PRESIDENT. There is a resolution before the Conference. Mr. GOODRICH (United States). Mr. President, it is of that resolution I am going to speak.

The PRESIDENT. The delegate from the United States.

Mr. GOODRICH (United States). Mr. President, I believe, so far as I know myself, that I am heartily in favor of one system of lights for sea and inland navigation, and that, I take it, is within the power of this Conference, within the ad referendum of this Conference. Of course we are only acting here subject to the adoption of our action by government and government. If this Conference recommend the proposition of the gallant delegate from Sweden, then it will become the subject for the action of each government, and if it were unanimously adopted by this Conference I have no doubt it would be unanimously adopted by all the governments represented in the Conference. I see no reason, perhaps by reason of my inexperience in nautical matters, why there should not be the same lights for a steam-boat or steam-ship of any kind proceeding upon the sea when proceeding upon inland waters. Sailors, as we all know, want very few rules; the gentleman who represented the Board of Trade of Great Britain attempted to impress upon the sailors in some poetic language something which would fix their minds upon the great rules of the sea. Now, I do not see why it should not be arranged that inland waters and sea waters should be governed by the same rules, so far as they can. I do not lay down absolutely that in all these regulations the same system should apply to both sea and inland vessels; but in the system of lights, let the eye of the man on the lookout be educated to know that a white light, for instance, means an anchor light, and a white mast-head light with two colored lights means a steamer or steam-vessel, a steam-boat, something under steam, and I think we have simplified the situation a great deal. By and by we will discuss this question of the lights on smaller boats; but it seems to me that we should wipe out, so far as we can, the distinction between sea-going and inland-going vessels. For the present I am very heartily in accord with the gentleman from Sweden.

Mr. FLOOD (Norway). Mr. President, I am fully in accord with the amendment proposed by Mr. Goodrich. I would only propose that the amendment should be extended to all waters connected with the sea by natural or artificial means.

The PRESIDENT. Does the delegate from Norway propose that as an amendment to the resolution of the delegate from Sweden?

Mr. FLOOD (Norway). Mr. President, I would only mention that as a subject for discussion.

Mr. HALL (Great Britain). Mr. President, I would simply point out to the Conference that it would be a very serious thing if we should attempt to pass a rule, or if we were to pass a rule, which would result in altering the whole of the local rules in all countries; and there would also be this difficulty: For instance, some of our launches do not carry