페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

pensate for the disadvantage of making a recommendation—there being nothing mandatory in the second portion of the amendment—that all sailing vessels should have their side lights placed in a certain posi. tion; which change, in the opinion of the Spanish delegation, presents an advantage of but secondary importance, and which is insufficient to be made a rule. I therefore, proposed to the committee to separate the amendment into two portions, the one referring to steam vessels and the other to sailing vessels. When this separation was accepted, I advocated and voted for the first portion, which makes an addition in the present rules which is of great advantage, and I was thereby enabled to vote against the second portion, which is merely a recommendation in which I see no advantage worthy of consideration.

Now that I am speaking, allow me to reply to a remark made by the learned Dr. Sieveking. He thinks that we should not support this amendment, because it seems to him that it has not been accepted by Great Britain, and that therefore, its advantages disappear. But that is the way with all the articles; if any government does not adopt them, the advantages of unanimity do not exist. But this consideration should in nowise cause us to change our opinions. We recommend what we think is good, what we consider necessary to modify, what the majority in this Conference desire to have unanimously adopted. It concerns our respective governments and not ourselves, to keep an account of the objections which some governments may have to what we agree upon.

Captain SALVESEN (Norway). Mr. President, there have been remarks made to-day in the Conference about members of the Collocation Committee voting for the amendment who still recommend it to be reconsidered. I am one of these members. I voted for the rule, but would not in the Collocation Committee oppose its reconsideration, as I think it of much more importance that the rules should be correct than that my vote should be correct. But as I still consider the rule good, I will once more in the Conference have to vote for it, but I have no objection to the rule as it stands being inserted in the appendix which is to be sent to different governments as a recommendation.

Captain MALMBERG (Sweden). Mr. President, I will not take up the time of the Conference. I will only state that I am of exactly the same opinion as the learned delegate from Germany, Dr. Sieveking. I will vote against inserting the amendment into the rules of the road as long as it is not universally adopted, but I will vote for its insertion in Appendix B.

Mr. HALL (Great Britain). Mr. President, I do not wish to prolong this discussion. I will only point out that we have all alovg expressed our willingness to vote in favor of such a proposition as this with re. gard to steamers' side lights being placed in a certain position, and that it should be placed in a recommendation at the end of the rules. That suggestion was thrown out, I think it perfectly fair to say, to the dele. gate from Norway, who moved this amendment a very long time ago,

S. Ex. 53- -68

and we have always been ready to do that. We opposed the rule because it makes it obligatory upon vessels at the present time to carry the lights in this position. I will point out in reply to the learned delegate from Germany, who states that he does not want this rule adopted because Great Britain refuses to comply with it, that it is not Great Britain alone, but there are a great many more powers which have voted against this rule, and we have not heard anything which would lead us to suppose that they had changed their views any more than we have.

Mr. FLOOD (Norway). Mr. President, may I be allowed to make a remark in regard to what has fallen from Captain Shackford, the gallant delegate from the United States? He said a while ago that he thought a majority of the Scandinavian ships carried their side lights aft. As a representative of over 3,000 Norwegian vessels, and having been for fifteen years an insurance director and insurance general agent, I ought to know a little more about that than the gallant delegate from tbe United States, and I repeat that a very small percentage of the Scandinavian vessels carry their side lights aft. I ask the honorable delegates here present from Scandinavian countries to back me up in this matter. I forgot when the gallant admiral, Sir Bowden-Smith, spoke about the side-lights question, whether he said that it should be a matter of inspection as to placing them--then I would say if we are to leave one thing to inspectors why should we discuss whether the lamp should be of a certain size and the range of the lamp? Why could not that also be left to inspectors! We have different rules about that in every country. Our lights are measured; the size of the wick is measured, and the length of the screen is given in centimeters, not only in feet. All that is subject to inspection. I do not see why this matter should be left to the inspectors of the different countries any more than the question of lights should be left to the inspectors.

Mr. VERBRUGGHE (Belgium). Mr. President, I voted the first time against the amendment. I will do so again on this occasion for the following reason: Most assuredly the position of the lights on board of a steamer is a very important question. It would be desirable to arrive at a solution. If the three lights of a steamer could be placed in the same vertical plane, or in such a manner that the side light should form a given angle with the vertical line passing through the white light, then, in case of the steamer manæuvring, the change in her course would be easily ascertained; but it was found that great difficulties would prevent the adoption of such radical measures. These difficulties already exist in regard to the modifications proposed by the amendment now under discussion. I think that the real solution would be found in the proposition of the honorable Dr. Sieveking. For the present moment we must limit ourselves to recommendations, which will certainly be taken into consideration in new constructions. If such difficulties exist for steam. ers, still more so are they encountered in sailing vessels, and it is absolutely impossible to apply the measure as a general rule, which is the object of the Conference. As there are various categories of sailing vessels and different tonnages, it would be dangerous to prescribe a rule when we know in advance that it could not be applied to all. For these reasons, I repeat that I will by preference vote for the amendment of the honorable delegate from Germany,

Mr. VERNEY (Siam). Mr. President, may I be allowed to support the proposition made by the learned delegate from Germany for the following reason ! It seems to me that it is extremely important to distinguish what is the duty of a master of a vessel and what is the duty of an in. spector. I think myself that some things have crept into these rules connected with the construction of lights which should not have properly been in the rules at all. I think that the main object and the sole object of the rules to prevent collisions at sea, such as you are to put into the hands of sailors, should be to tell the sailor how to act under certain circumstances. Can the sailor, under any circumstances, have anything whatever to do with the construction of the lights? I think not. As regards sailing ships, I admit there is a responsibility which is never absent and can never be absent from the master as to where these lights should be placed, and it seems to be quite right to leave that responsibility with him, as has been so ably explained to us by the gallant delegate from the United States, Captain Shackford.

With regard to the steam-ship, the place where a steam-ship should have to carry a light can easily be determined beforehand and should be determined before she leaves port. That being so, is it not right and fair to have it so determined ? It is a very fair proposal which has been made to us by the learned delegate from Germany that this proposal should be put into Appendix B and not inserted in the rules. The gallant delegate from Norway has argued that in other rules these questions are dealt with. We must admit that he is right. There is no doubt that there are questions of construction brought into the rules of the road, as regards lamps, etc. But because there happens to be one blot in the rules should we put in another? Because construction is spoken of in certain rules is it necessary to put in another rule dealing with construction ? Is it not more logical to allow the question of the position of the lamp on board of the steam-ship to be dealt with in the appendix, where it will always be before the minds of the government, and some day or other, when the custom becomes more general and more uniform, to adopt that custom and make it a part of the rules of the road at sea ? Therefore, wbile I should cordially vote for the proposal of the learned delegate from Germany, I do not feel able to support the proposal as originally made by the gallant delegate from Norway.

Mr. FLOOD (Norway). Mr. President, may I be allowed to make a remark? The first delegate from Great Britain said that a long time ago I had been advised that they would agree to have the proposition put into a note and that they had approached me on that subject. That is so, Mr. President. About a fortnight ago the learned delegate, Dr. Sieveking, did me the honor to speak to me about this matter outside in the lobby, as did also the learned de.egate from Great Britain some days afterwards in this room. I auswered both of the gentlemen in the same way, and I said : Gentlemen, I have nothing to do with this amendment any more.

It belonged to me before I put it before the Conference; but after being adopted by the Conference it belongs to the Conference, and I have not a word to say in the matter. If you think it necessary to have it brought before the Conference I shall not say a siugle word against it until I have heard what the Conference have to say in the matter. I answered both of the gentlemen the same thing, and they are here and will corroborate my statement. So I do not understand the force of what the learned first delegate from Great Britain said when he stated that long ago the delegate from Norway had been advised in this matter. But that matter has been decided by you, Mr. President. You stated from your chair that the amendment had been adopted. Then it became no longer mine; it belonged to the Conference and not to me. All that I said was tbat I would not oppose it until I heard what the Conference had to say about the matter, and I have kept my word. I did not say a word before the first delegate from England made his elaborate speech.

Captain NORCROSS (United States). Mr. President, 1 placed my name on the additional report of the Light Committee because really it makes no change in present conditions. If it is the meaning and intent of the amendment to have one uniform position on all vessels in which to carry the lights, then in view of risk of collision I periectly agree with the delegate from Norway, that the calculation of the ship's length is often an important factor. The delegate from the United States has pointed out the risk attending the carrying of lights abreast the foremast on sailing vessels. On larger vessels, however, the cage is always in the fore channels forward of the rigging, but in bad weather the lights are invariably placed aft. If this amendment pointed out the desirability of carrying the lights in that position and recommended a note calling attention to future construction I would give it my decided support.

Mr. FLOOD (Norway). Mr. President, only one word. I hope I can say that it will be my very last in this Conference. It is this: When this proposition from the two learned delegates from Great Britain and Germany was presented to me by them, neither of them said that he would strike out the provision in regard to sailing ships. They proposed to take my amendment adopted by the Conference as it stood; but not a word was spoken about sailing vessels. To-day I read that this is to be stricken out.

The PRESIDENT. The question before the Conference is the resolution of the delegate from Germany as to placing this resolution in a note in Appendix B. The effect of the passage of this resolution would be that the amendment of the delegate from Norway would be lost, and this would be placed in Appendix B as a suggestion; that is, the first part of it which refers to steamers. It would not be the amendment of the delegate from Norway.

Dr. SIEVEKING (Germany). Mr. President, of course we leave that to your decision, but I think it fair to take a vote upon the amendment offered by the delegate from Norway.

The PRESIDENT. The Chair would prefer that course, but the resolution comes first in order.

Dr. SIEVEKING (Germany). Mr. President, my object in bringing forward this resolution was, in case the amendment of the gallant delegate should be lost, that this might be carried. Of course there will be no use for it if the amendment of the delegate from Norway is carried.

The PRESIDENT. If the delegate from Norway so proposes the Chair will first put the question upon that part of the amendment which refers to steamers, and afterwards upon that part of it wbich refers to sailing vessels.

Mr. FLOOD (Norway). Mr. President, I have nothing more to say in the matter; I leave it entirely to your decision.

Mr. VERBRUGGHE (Belgium). Mr. President, may I remark that if the Conference proceed in that way, we shall be obliged to bring it under the rules of the road, and I believe the majority are against voting for it under the rules. I would propose that the amendment as it stands should be voted upon, and then, whether it is carried or not the Conference will vote upon the resolution of the learned delegate from Germany.

The PRESIDENT. The question wbich has been discussed this morn. ing is the additional report of the Committee on Lights. The Chair desires to have a motion with regard to that report, which has just been dealt with.

Captain MALMBERG (Sweden). Mr. President, may I have the honor to propose that a vote shall be taken upon the report of the Committee on Lights ?

The PRESIDENT. Will the delegate from Sweden be kind enough to propose that it be taken separately upon the two propositions?

Captain MALMBERG (Sweden). Mr. President, my proposition is to vote upon that report as a whole.

The PRESIDENT. Does the delegate from Sweden move the adoption of the report of the committee ?

Captain MALMBERG (Sweden). Mr. President, I move that the vote be taken upon the adoption of the amendment.

The PRESIDENT. The question before the Conference is upon the ad. ditional report of the Committee on Lights, which is to be adopted or rejected.

Mr. HALL (Great Britain). Mr. President, I think we might perhaps

« 이전계속 »