to the masthead light as the recommendation contained in our report of the 4th of November. Nevertheless, by preventing steam-vessels from carrying the side lights forward of the masthead light, it will serve to give more certainty to the respective position of the regulation lights, and thus in our opinion will mark a decided improvement of the means of ascertaining the course of an approaching steamer, which improvement will gradually be increased when experience shows the advantages of the system.

"On the other hand, the difficulties connected with the introduction of the rule appear to be not at all insurmountable. Many ships are even now constructed so as not to require any changes in consequence of the adoption of this rule. Others might easily comply with the rule by changing the position of the masthead light, by placing it more forward of the foremast. And even if the position of the side lights should have to be altered, this could, in most cases, be done without incurring too heavy expense.

"We, therefore, recommend to let the rule stand as it is; provided, however, that the rule be adopted universally. Having regard to the difficulties which some ship-owners may justly feel if they had to comply with the new rule at once, your committee think that sufficient time should be allowed for the effecting of the changes necessitated by the rule, so as to enable ship-owners to carry out these changes under the most convenient conditions. Vessels now in course of construction will, of course, be able to adopt the new principle at once.

"As regards sailing-vessels, the committee do not consider it necessary to adopt the above-mentioned rule.

"We have the honor to be, sir, your most obedient servants, "Vice-Admiral N. KAZNAKOFF, "Chairman, Russia.

"E. RICHARD,

Mr. HALL (Great Britain). Mr. President, as the learned delegate for the United States who is chairman of the Collocation Committee is not able to be in his place this morning, perhaps I may state very briefly what our action has been in the matter and what the views are that we have taken in regard to this amendment. It may be remembered that originally a proposition was brought forward to assign a fixed position to the side lights abaft of the foremast. That was discussed at considerable length; but it was withdrawn by the gallant delegate for Germany, who said that at a future time he would bring forward a resolu tion in the words of the recommendation of the Committee on Lights. So the matter stood when the amendment of the delegate for Norway was brought forward. It was not stated to the Conference then that

this amendment-or rather it was stated that this amendment was the recommendation of the Committee on Lights; but there were matters which were not stated in connection with it, and one was that the effect of this amendment, if carried, would be that every existing vessel which has not got a light in the position mentioned in the amendment would have to be altered for that purpose; and it was also not mentioned that the Committee on Lights had not made any suggestion whatever with regard to sailing vessels, and this amendment included sailing vessels as well as steamers. It was at once seen that by this amendment, if it stood as it was framed by the mover of it, all steam-vessels would have to be altered which had their lights forward of the masthead light, and all sailing vessels would be obliged to put their lights abreast of the foremast.

I need not point out to this Conference that the words "if practicable” mean, in a legal sense, "if possible," and no sailing vessel could excuse herself for not putting her lights in that position, if it were possible to do so. So that every sailing vessel on the sea now would have to put her lights abreast of the foremast and carry them there. That formed such a far-reaching proposition, as it appeared to us, especially as it had not been called to the attention of the Conference at all-not one single word had been said by the mover of the amendment pointing out this proposition with regard to sailing vessels-and as the report of the Committee on Lights was silent on the point and made no suggestion about sailing vessels-it appeared to us that it was not thoroughly considered by the Conference. I will only deal now with the proposition as it stands. The matter was referred to the Commitee on Lights and they have made a further report. They say: "Your committee, after having most carefully considered the subject, are unanimous in reporting that in their opinion the rule passed by the Conference ought to be maintained." But that is clearly an oversight, because they say on the next page that as regards sailing vessels they do not consider it necessary to adopt the above-mentioned rule. So that the report of the Committee on Lights is against that part of the amendment which applies to sailing vessels. I do not think we shall have any difficulty about that, because, ar far as I am concerned, I am at a loss to see what advantage could be gained with regard to sailing vessels which do not carry a masthead light, and therefore would not give you the slightest information with regard to the position of the side lights.

Now, with regard to the position of the lights on steam-vessels. We have been most anxious, my colleagues and myself, and I think our actions have proved it, to defer in every case where we can, to the report of the committees appointed by this Conference. We have recognized the fact that the committees which have dealt with the matters referred to them by the Conference have dealt with them most carefully and thoroughly; and in all cases where their recommendations have been made, if I may say so, upon actual experience, we have bowed to the

decisions of the committees. But with regard to the question of having a position, whether fixed or not fixed, on board of a steam-vessel, of course the Conference will have noticed this: That in the report of the Committee on Lights it does not say that they are satisfied that such a matter would be productive of great good. All they say is that they think at least some advantage might be gained by placing the side lights abaft the mast and the change probably could be made without great expense. Well, so far as we are concerned, we can not vote in favor of a proposition of this kind, which would compel every steam-vessel to be altered which at present carries her lights forward of the foremast simply because the committee say they think some advantage might be gained by it. We do not think it is a sufficiently strong recommendation to justify voting in favor of the amendment, which, as I say, would compel a very large number of vessels now afloat to be in some cases almost reconstructed so as to alter the way in which these lights were carried.

I only want to point out the reasons which are given not only by us from Great Britain, but by delegates from other powers, against the adoption of any position, either forward or aft of the mast, being laid down in a rule. We discussed this most exhaustively before, when the original proposition was before the Conference on the motion of my learned friend the delegate from Germany. I regret that we should be obliged to dissent at all from any recommendation of a committee of this Conference, as we are anxious to support the committees in their views; and I think we have given the very best evidence of that in our acquiescence in the report of the Committee on the Load-Line, without demurring at all to the decision. Therefore, having regard to the fact that the committee themselves only point out that they think some advantage might possibly be gained if this proposal were adopted, and having regard to the fact that if the proposal is adopted, existing vessels will have to be altered in some cases, as I am told, at a very great expense, amounting sometimes, it is said by those who know best, to £1,000 a vessel, we can not feel justified in voting for the adoption of this amendment in regard to steam-vessels. As I say, with regard to sailing vessels I take it that after the further report of the Committee on Lights it is unnecessary to argue the question on this point. I think that is a proposition which can not be supported.

The PRESIDENT. The additional report of the Committee on Lights is before the Conference for consideration.

Mr. FLOOD (Norway). Mr. President, I ask to be excused for again taking the liberty of occupying the time of this Conference. I have once before discussed this matter, and I have very little to say with regard to it in addition; but I will ask permission of the Conference, in view of my opinion, to say a few words on the subject, and to be allowed to make a short retrospect as to the manner in which this question has been put before the Conference, and how it has come up

to-day. I will remind you, Mr. President and gentlemen of the Conference, that this amendment was, as has already been stated before, brought before you in an amendment proposed by the German delegation. It was brought before this Conference on the 4th of November and discussed. Captain Mensing, in a very able and strong speech, showed how this arrangement would be very advisable; and how, in fact, it would be a benefit to shipping in general to adopt this amendment as it was then brought before the Conference. On the same day the report of the Committee on Lights was placed before us, and after discussion it was decided to have the matter laid over until a further report of the Committee on Lights, as there seemed to be some kind of misinterpretation concerning one of its expressions.

On that occasion, Mr. Hall, the learned first delegate from England, then admitted that prima facie this was the best position in which the side-lights could be carried. That is in the Protocol of November 4. Then he goes on to try to weaken the report of the Committee on Lights by saying: "Can we propose to pass an international rule because the committee think it probable that some good would result from it, without any experiments being made?" Why! the Light Committee have never said they think it only probable that good may result; the committee never use the word "probable" in their recommendation; but on the contrary they unconditionally recommend that such lights should be placed abaft the masthead-light. The word "probable " which Mr. Hall uses there I can not find; I can only find on page 9 of the report of November 4 the opinion expressed that this change could be made "probably" without incurring great expense; that is all. Further on the learned counsellor continues: "Our Admirals studied this very point and they found that it was not practicable, having regard to the build of modern men-of-war." Indeed! Even if this were the case, which I take the liberty to doubt, how many men-of-war of this modern type are there in the world? and what percentage would they make of the combined merchant fleets of the world?

But what does the English Admiral say on the same subject? In the Protocol of November 4, Admiral Bowden-Smith states:

"I am very sorry to have to oppose this amendment, because I believe that if the lights were changed, that is the right position for them."

Then it was proposed to consider further the report of the Committee on Lights; and on the 14th of November, I took the liberty to propose to bring before the Conference my extra amendment No. 41, which is practically identical with Captain Mensing's or with the proposal of the German delegation; and I tried then in recommending the same, to give practically the same reasons for adopting this amendment. In that I was very ably and forcibly assisted by the gallant delegate from Germany, Captain Mensing. I do not desire to trouble the Conference

with repeating here what has been said, but I will take the liberty further on of making some remarks particularly concerning sailing vessels which would strengthen my argument.

The learned first delegate from England again comes forward against this amendment, and he commences with stating that this proposal has already in reality been disposed of by the Conference. Further on he again quotes the report of the Committee on Lights, and says:

"But this is only a recommendation made without any practical experiments having been made, and without any knowledge on the subject; and as has been pointed out here over and over again, a great many vessels would have to be reconstructed in order to provide for complying with any hard and fast rule."

Why, gentlemen, think of it! Shall we require the reconstruction of a man-of-war or a 5000-ton vessel in the merchant fleet in order to hang out over their sides a tiny little thing in the shape of a side-light lantern? I forgive him his expression on the subject, without daring to call it exactly want of knowledge, as he is not a practical sailor or ship-constructor; but I appeal to any practical sailor in this room, yea, even in the whole world, and ask him: Is the reconstruction of a vessel necessary? or are changes even costly for this purpose? I am sure I will score a decided "No;" and I have it already in the second report of the Committee on Lights, made December 12, 1889.

I am well aware that the learned counsellor, on Captain Mensing's referring to the Conference to decide if the committee had acted with or without knowledge on the subject, retracted the use of the words "without knowledge;" but further on he again repeats that he would consider it madness to pass international rules simply because it was suggested by the committee that some rule might be adopted without having any knowledge that it would be practically good, or what the result would be. I leave it to the Conference to decide if the committee's expression on this subject is only a suggestion or a direct recommendation.

Notwithstanding these strong arguments against my amendment, it was voted on, on the 14th of last month, and thirteen powers, including Germany, Russia, Spain, Portugal, The Netherlands, and the Northern countries, voted for the same, upon which the President decided: "The amendment is adopted."

But, not satisfied with having the matter twice before the Conference, and the second time legally adopted, which created great satisfaction all over the shipping world, as many reports in the newspapers bear witness, the same case is now for the third time before the Conference, and this time it is brought by the Collocation Committee, of which three members have before cast their votes for the adoption of the amendment. Now, the reasons for this reconsideration are pointed out to be that this new rule is too radical and far-reaching in its results, and particularly that it will entail great expense to sea-vessels and especially