페이지 이미지

to war vessels. The Committee on Lights are therefore, again asked to reconsider this matter, this time assisted by the distinguished expert in naval architecture and ship-building, lately added to Great Britain's bril. liant representation. This report is now before us in the committee's report dated December 12, and I can only find what I expected, that this able committee, consisting of representatives from the greatest maritime powers on earth, England, France, Germany, Russia, United States, etc., still stronger agree to their former report and recommend the adherence to this adopted rule concerning steam-vessels. And they so forcibly point out the advantages of doing so that it would only be a waste of time for me to say more on this subject. To my great disappointment, however, the committee closes its report by saying:

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

I am very sorry for this, and I frankly confess that I can not understand how the distinguished committee have come to this conclusion; and especially, that this seems to be unanimous, as there is no dissent. ing vote, since, as before stated, four of the representatives have hereto. fore cast the vote of their respective countries in favor of the rule for sailing vessels as well as for steam.vessels. I have not heard a singlo argument to prove that they voted wrong at that time; and I wonld respectfully ask them why they have altered their opinion about this matter. I will ask the opinion of the Conference and of yourself, Mr. President, as to whether you will take these two matters into consider ation at the same time. If so, I will ask permission to consume a few minutes more time with regard to sailing vessels.

The PRESIDENT. I see no objection to the delegate's proceeding with the subject of sailing vessels.

Mr. FLOOD (Norway). Mr. President, I shall not detain you much longer, because, as I stated before, I have said about all I can say with regard to this matter. With regard to sailing vessels the committee did not considerit necessary to adopt the above-mentioned rule; I confess that I am very sorry for this; and I confess that I can not see how the distinguished committee have come to this conclusion, which seems to be unanimous, since, as I before stated, four of the representatives have already cast the vote of their respective countries in favor of the amendment as at present adopted, which applies to sailing vessels as well as to steam-vessels. I can only say that I am very sorry that the over. whelming majority of the merchant sailing fleet afloat at present is so thinly or so weakly represented in this Conference. It may be that the merchant steamers and also the bar are very ably represented, but the sailing masters are very poorly represented among us; if there had been some more, perhaps there would have been better words than mine brought forward in this matter.

The committee say in this report that they do not wish to force this rule on sailing vessels ; so far as my experience goes, there is more reason for applying it to sailing vessels than to steamers. Sailing vessels are, of course, in some ways hampered and bothered by their sails;

, so the practice is to place the side lights so that they can not be obscured by the sails, and at the same time so that they can shine right forward free from any obstacle. For that purpose the side lights must be placed on the broadest beam, or, if not, they must be hung in davits, clear of the ship's side. We all know that the broadest part of a vessel will be somewhere abaft or abreast of the foremast. Every vessel of modern construction, so far as I know, is more or less narrow aft, and placing the lantern right abreast of the mizzen-rigging would not be the broadest part of the ship and would be at once the nail in the coffin in case of a collision or of any trouble of that kind. The only remedy for this is to hang them in davits outside.

Now, inay I make you aware that nothing hung outside of a ship's side is insurable in any company that I know of ? Life-boats, or anything else hung in davits are not insurable as long as they are outside of the ship's side. Why? Because experience has shown, often and often, that during heavy weather even the life-boats and other boats hung in davits are liable to be washed away by the heavy sea. Now, a tiny lantern inust be so fixed that a man can reach it with his band. The davits are made of about 1-inch iron, and the whole thing is of such a construction as to render it liable to be carried away immediately. I have bad several cases of that kind in my experience. I had a bad case of that sort where a vessel lost her lantern and tried to cross the Newfoundland Banks without the port lantern. She had no spare lanterns on board, and she ran into a fishing schooner on the Newfoundland Banks on a dark night. She ran her down at sea, and of her crew of twenty only 7 were saved. My company had to pay very heavy damages to the owners of the schooner, and the owners are still under heavy penalties for the lives lost, all because she had her lanteru slung in davits, and the sea took it overboard.

In addition to that the learned first delegate from England says that he can not see any benefit in having the lights fixed at a certain place on board sailing ships. I again, gentlemen, appeal to your common sense. When we have vessels of from 250 to 300 feet long, can you say that it makes no difference to know where those lights are on board of that vessel, when there may be a difference from the cathead to the taffrail of over 200 feet? Does it not make any difference, in your judgment, where the lights are on a vessel on a dark night, when it comes to an emergency! I thiuk that every man of common sense and practical knowledge with regard to this matter will answer that it is very necessary to know this.

It was further stated by the learned first delegate from England that the expense of changing the lights would be as high as £1,000 in making the alterations and putting the side lights from forward to abaft of the head-light. I would take the liberty to ask if that really is so, and if

there is any practical ship-builder present, or any ship-owner, who will stand up here and say that it will cost £1,000? I am told by a man who ought to know very well, that £100 to £150 would be the utmost that it would cost to have an alteration like that made. In connection with this I will only make one further remark. I ask the steam-ship owners and the steam-ship captains here present if I am not telling the truth when I say, that in crossing the Atlantic in the winter time, their tarrets, during snow-storms and in wintry weather, become covered with ice, so that the whole turret looks like a big snow-man, and if they do not have to move the side lights to near the bridge on account of the spray coming over the bow more than over any other part of the ship! I will ask the present steam-ship captains and the ship-owners if this is not the case? That is a strong point for having the side lights placed in a less exposed position.

Admiral BOWDEN-SMITH (Great Britain). Mr. President, I should just like to repeat again what I believe I said before with regard to placing the side lights in a uniform position with the mast-head light. If I did not say it before I desire to state it now. I took the trouble, before I left England, to communicate with the Admiralty, semi-officially, thinking that this question might come up here, because the principle as stated in this amendment certainly does give certain information. After consulting all the dock-owners, I found that they did not see their way to making this change, especially on men-of-war. I quite agree with what the honorable delegate from Norway says that men-of-war are a very small percentage of the ships, but on the other hand, we say that the men-of-war ought to comply with the regulations as well as any other ship. Of course the British Government would pay great attention to anything that is passed by this Conference; but I can only say that as to men-of-war, I do not think we could very well do it. Some of them carry only one mast and that mast is right amidships.

With regard to sailing ships I do not quite follow the honorable delegate from Norway, because I understand him to say that when some of these small ships put their lights aft the sails obscure them. In that case of course they do not carry out the regulations, because the regulations say that these side lights are to show from right ahead to so many points abaft the beam. Therefore, if a little vessel feels that she can not carry her side lights where other ships do, she puts them in davits, as many of the small boats do, and as many of the Scandinavian small boats do, and if she does not then of course she does not carry out the regulations. But it appears to me that this is a matter for the inspectors to determine. I think the inspectors might settle that. Surely if a sailing ship carries her side lights in any place where they can not be seen, or where they are obscured by the sails, it is a question for the inspectors to determine and stop, if necessary. Although I do see some good in such lights being carried in a uniform position with the mast-head lights on the steamers, because it gives you a certain kind of information, I do not exactly see the point with regard to sailing ships carrying their side lights in a certain fixed position, without you know on which end of the ship they are. I presume that they really carry them where they can best be seen, and that seems to me to be a mere matter for the inspectors rather than for the rules of the road.

Mr. FLOOD (Norway). Mr. President, first of all I must beg to be allowed to correct myself, if I expressed myself so wrongly as to say that I was against having them hung in davits because they would be obscured by the sails. Of course I understand that according to the reg. ulations, and also by the Board of Trade regulations, the side lights are to be placed on the vessel where she has the broadest beam. Now, some vessels do not find it convenient to have them on the broadest beam, especially as mentioned by the gallant admiral, in small ships, and for that reason they have them in davits on the outside of the ship, and it is for the purpose of not obscuring the light by the foresail, especially when they sail with free sheets or before the wind. So I do not see that there is any force in what has been said with regard to that.

Captain SHACKFORD (United States). Mr. President, in regard to the side lights on steamers, it does not seem to me to make any difference to them at all, as I read this amnendment, because they can carry their side lights anywhere from the knight-head to the taffrail. As to sailing vessels I am very sorry to differ with the gallant delegate from Norway. It seems to me that the position he has assigned to the side lights is the very worst place on the whole vessel in which he could place them. Abreast of the foremast on a large vessel 250 feet long is all very well, because they might be carried there, and that is the widest part of the ship; but on small vessels they certainly could not be carried below the lower dead-eye, and in bad weather they must be raised up into the rigging, and, as they are raised up, they must be carried inside, and on square-rigged vessels they are then immediately obscured by the foresail. They can not be carried below in small vessels except in very fine weather, and as they are raised up they are carried inside of the line of the ship, and they must be obscured by the square-sails. Again, as the gallant admiral from Great Britain bas just stated, it seems to me that the majority of the Scandinavian vessels carry these lights aft in davits. I have seen several carry their lights in that way, and they would not carry them there unless that was the best place for them. I agree entirely with the gallant delegate from Great Britain that all small sailing vessels should carry their lights in the position where they can best be seen by other vessels and also by the officer in charge of the vessel showing the light. Therefore, as I said before, I think this is about the worst place possible to select to put these side lights. If they are abreast of the foremast they must be in the rigging.

Dr. SIEVEKING (Germany). Mr. President, after what has fallen from the learned first delegate from Great Britain I think it is quite clear that we may consider it to be certain that Great Britain would not ac. cept the rule if it was brought into the regulations as a rule. Now, the Committee on Lights in their additional report say that they recommend to let the rule stand as it is, provided, however, the rule be adopted universally. I think, as far as I understand the matter, that it is quite obvious that there will not only be no advantage derived from the rule, but that even great uncertainty will be established if there is not a universal and uniform action in this matter taken by all the maritime nations. Under these circumstances, although the German delegation is of the opinion (and this opinion is confirmed by the additional report of the Committeeon Lights) that it would be advisable and that it would even be possible to carry out the rule as a rule, still, under the circumstances, I beg to say on behalf of the German delegation that we would not insist on this rule being embodied in the regulations, and we shall not vote for inserting it in the rules.

I see that the Collocation Committee in their report recommend that this amendment be reconsidered, and if the proposed change of the position of the side lights is approved, that the suggestion be made in a note instead of its being embodied in the regulations. I think there will be some advantage at least obtained for the future if we insert a provision in the note providing for such a position of the side lights instead of putting it into the rules and regulations. This principle could be printed in the resolutions which are embodied in Appendix B of the report of the Committee on Collocation, and that would perhaps be of some advantage. Therefore I should propose a resolution to this effect: “ That it is approved by the Conference and recommended to the attention of the powers represented thereat that the green and red side lights should be placed in steam-vessels not forward of the masthead lights.” That would refer to steam-vessels only. After what has been said here about sailing vessels we think that such a provision should not be made a part of this recommendation. So we shall vote against the amendment of the delegate from Norway being a part of the rules of the road, and we would propose to have it recommended as I have just read it, and to have it embodied in Appendix B for the future.

Lieutenant VEGA DE SEOANE (Spain). Mr. President, the honorable delegate from Norway has manifested some astonishment because some of the delegates who voted in favor of his amendment when it was voted upon in the Conference, opposed in the Committee on Lights the second portion of said amendment, which bears upon the position of the running lights on sailing vessels. I am one of them, and I desire to explain this apparent contradiction, which is not a contradiction in fact.

The Spanish delegation voted in favor of the amendment, and it is still disposed to sustain it with its vote, because in its opinion the advantages which it introduces into the present system of lights on steamers are so important and so easy to effect that they largely com

« 이전계속 »