be stricken out, in accordance with the amendment of the delegate from Germany, I hope that at least the last lines of the paragraph will be put into the first part of the article, because I know that they are very necessary. Those words are: "Does not apply to two vessels which must, if both be upon their respective course, pass clear of each other." I should very much object to having those words taken out of this article.

Mr. HALL (Great Britain). Mr. President, I hope the learned delegate from Germany will not think it necessary to press this amendment. I think he is not aware of the circumstances under which these notes were framed. The port-helm rule, it is quite true, was done away with by the regulations of 1863. But sailors were still so wedded to the port-helm rule that they would not regard this rule. They did not treat it as sufficiently binding and they did not understand it, and the consequence was that five years afterwards a lengthy correspondence took place between France and Great Britain, the powers which had drawn up these rules originally, and after six months these two powers devised the means of explaining this rule so clearly that a sailor could not possibly say that he was mistaken about the meaning of it; and it was thought desirable to put it and to repeat it, and at the risk of being accused of tautology and repetition to say the same thing, perhaps, over and over again in such a way that no sailor, however ig. norant, could say: "I do not understand that rule." I apprehend it might be argued that the time has gone by for these explanations; but I certainly must hope that we shall not vote for doing away with these notes, which certainly do away with any possibility of doubt as to the meaning of the rule, simply because a few more words are used than are absolutely necessary.

I quite agree with the gallant delegate from Sweden, that if a part of this article were omitted we ought to keep the three lines of the first article, and I think we ought not to mutilate the note and take two or three lines out of the first part, although, they are lines which I admit are contained in other parts of these notes. But that would mutilate the note, and I think we can very well afford to leave these two or three lines, even at the risk of being accused of a little tautology, when we can retort in answer to that accusation, that at any rate no sailor can make a mistake about what it means.

Mr. GOODRICH (United States). I may state that the Collocation Committee have already had the very question raised by the delegate from Germany under very careful consideration, and of course in that consideration we had the benefit of the experience and suggestions of the learned chief judge of Germany. But still the Collocation Committee was of the opinion that the rule had better be maintained in the condition in which it had stood for twenty-five years. There is another thing which I desire to suggest to the Conference, and that is, in all of the hundred amendments which have been proposed to the regulations

there was not a single one to this article, except that the delegate from Siam did propose to insert the words "so as to prevent risk of collision" in the first part of this article, which he afterwards withdrew. It is a pretty good rule not to attempt hastily to break an established rule nor to break a rule where the courts have given it a construction.

This rule is designed not only for the construction of the court-because the courts have already given a construction to the words “end on or nearly end on"-but to the sailor, inasmuch as the position is quite a frequent one to vessels crossing the Atlantic, and it was desirable that attention should be pointed and repointed to the necessity of obeying the rule which provided for the case of vessels meeting end on. The difficulty is, that if you attempt to strike out one of these paragraphs and leave another, or to insert something new, you are going to destroy the symmetry of the rule as it at present stands. It seems to me, to provide against every case which a sailor can meet with at the time of his meeting a vessel end on, or nearly end on, and so prevent collision. I may further say that, so far as I know—and if I make a mistake I can . be corrected by the learned first delegate from Great Britain-in all the judicial constructions on this rule there is only one case, and that a recent one, where the verbiage of this rule has been criticised. I must say that my opinion has not been changed by what has been so ably said by the learned delegate from Germany; and I think it is very wise to let this rule stand as it has stood for twenty-five years.

Captain MENSING (Germany). Mr. President, it is not my learned friend, Dr. Sieveking, who has proposed this amendment, but it is a sailor; and from a sailor's standpoint I would like to say something with regard to it. When I began to follow the sea I never could make anything out of this rule; though I have read it over and over again. Whenever I came to these paragraphs, Nos. 1, 2, and 3, I said: "Why are all of these words stuck in here? There is a long row of words strung one after another and they must have some meaning." After a while I said: "Very well; perhaps there is no meaning to them, as there is often a long string of words without any meaning; and so there is no meaning to them." I would ask any one of the gentlemen of this class (to which I have the honor to belong) of practical seamen, whether they find that there is anything in this second paragraph which is not repeated in paragraphs 3 and 4? Now, I do not know anything about how this language originated, but it seems to me that it is the most natural way to suppose that the first article was written, and then that it was found necessary to make a further declaration in the second article, and in order to make that declaration, paragraph 2 was inserted. But after a while the learned judges found out that that was not sufficient, so they brought up paragraphs 3 and 4. Paragraphs 3 and 4 are nothing but a repetition; and it confuses the sailor to read this same thing over and over again.

The other rules, as they stand now, seem to me to be very well defined,

any sailor can make sense of them; but in this case I think it is doubtful, and I have taken the liberty to propose this amendment to my colleagues, and they have adopted it. I am sorry that this amendment has been included in the amendments on principle, for there is no principle about it. It is a simple matter of collocation. I think that it might be shorter, and then the article would be more easily understood. That is the reason why I have proposed it.

Now, the gallant delegate from Sweden has said that there was something in this paragraph which was not in the other article. I beg to differ from his opinion, because in Article 4 he will see that it does not apply to the cases where, by day, a vessel sees another ahead crossing her own course; or by night to the cases where the red light of one vessel is opposed to the red light of the other; or where the green light of one vessel is opposed to the green light of the other; or where a red light without a green light, or a green light without a red light is seen ahead; or where both green and red lights are seen anywhere but ahead. Now,

I think that every sailor will understand that when he sees a green light on the starboard side he is clear and has to keep his course; and if he sees a red light on his port side he is clear and has to keep his course. If that meets the case, then you will see that the whole paragraph is nothing but a repetition and reiteration of what has been said in paragraphs 3 and 4. Now, it has been very ably explained in the report of the Committee on Collocation that the rules and regulations should be as short as possible, and if that be true and there be really nothing in paragraph 2 but what is contained in paragraphs 3 and 4, I think the paragraphs might safely be omitted.

Mr. VERNEY (Siam). Mr. President, perhaps I may be allowed to add one or two words to this matter. The Collocation Committee have put themselves into this dilemma. They say on the title page of their report that they are going to retain existing rules as far as possible and at the same time they are to make the articles as short as possible; to do both is impossible. I shall not support the proposition of the delegate from Germany, because in my opinion I think this article might be made a great deal shorter and a great deal clearer, but it is not to be made so by merely taking out one paragraph. I think that if the Collocation Committee had profane hands on this rule and had ventured to deal with it, I venture to say that any one of them would make a much clearer and a much shorter rule; at least I think they would. As they have not done that, and as it has been considered a rule that nobody in this Conference has any business to touch, or at any rate that it is better to leave it alone, I prefer to leave it alone in its entirety rather than to cut out one part of it. There is an immense lot of tautology in it, and I think tautology does not tend to clearness. I think that same principle applies whether you are dealing with seamen or any other class of men.

I should very much prefer to have seen this rule made more clear and

explicit; and if the learned and gallant delegates from Germany had brought us in a really carefully-drawn-up rule, in a way which they are so abundantly able to do, I should have been willing to support it. I do not think that these last two lines in paragraph 2 are to be found in any other part of this rule as it now stands; and I venture to think that they are a very valuable part of the rule. Therefore, although I cordially agree with much that has fallen from the gallant delegate from Germany, I still feel unable to support his proposition to cut out the second paragraph.

Mr. GOODRICH (United States). Mr. President: May I suggest in the first place that the gallant delegate from France has an important resolution to move; and in the next place, is it not worth while for the delegates to consider whether they had not better continue our session a little later this afternoon? It is barely possible that we may discuss the remaining six or seven amendments before we separate to-night; and on behalf of the Collocation Committee, which will have to make some changes in the rules as ordered by the Conference, I submit that it would perhaps be wise for us to go on until some member moves to adjourn. Therefore, I move that we prolong the session of the Conference until the motion to adjourn shall be carried.

Captain RICHARD (France). Mr. President, I would, on the contrary, ask that the members of this Conference be allowed to go home. But in making this proposition, I would ask the Conference, in order that we may arrive at a prompt conclusion of the work which is imposed upon us, to adopt the proposition which I will now have the honor to submit to you. The discussion has progressed so far to-day in regard to the rules of the road, the opinions of all have been expressed so freely and at length, that we should now look to the means and the necessity of arriving at a conclusion. Under those circumstances I would ask the Conference that all amendments adopted by it be sent to the Collocation Committee, to enable it to give us a final report. We have now discussed more than two hundred amendments; we have for more than two months sat from 11 to 4 o'clock, and sometimes from 10 to 5, and I think that the time has come to make a final report, and to cause to appear in such report without further delay all the amendments which have been adopted by the Conference, so that the end may not be retarded. We will not learn very much more from further discussion, and we can not allow amendments to be brought up for an indefinite period. The third reading has now taken place. The time has arrived for the final rules to be presented.

I would therefore propose that all amendments adopted by the Conference be placed in the rules by the Collocation Committee, and that they make a final report. I will now ask the honorable Mr. Goodrich not to propose prolonging our session beyond the regular hour, but to adjourn immediately, with the understanding that to-morrow we shall resume our regular session.

Captain SHACKFORD (United States). Mr. President, we have been sitting here four hours dealing with fifteen of these amendments. That is about four an hour, and we still have six, and the one which is now before us is not finished; so at the lowest calculation it will take an hour and a half or two hours to finish these amendments. Therefore I move to adjourn.

Mr. GOODRICH (United States). Mr. President, will my friend not give way, that we may take a vote upon this proposition of the delegate from France?

Captain SHACKFORD (United States). Mr. President, if my motion is in.order I would like to press it.

The PRESIDENT. The motion to adjourn is not debatable and debate will not be allowed, if the delegate from the United States presses his motion.

Captain SHACKFORD (United States). Mr. President, I understood that this resolution was to be read and that we would vote on it directly, and then I want to move to adjourn.

Mr. HALL (Great Britain). Mr. President, could we not dispose of this one amendment? Of course I do not want to sit here if it does not suit the convenience of the other delegates.

Captain SHACKFORD (United States). Mr. President, I simply want to say that I have other business to attend to besides this.

Mr. GOODRICH (United States). I desire to say that the Collocation Committee will meet at five o'clock.

The PRESIDENT. The resolution of the delegate from France will now be read.

The resolution is as follows:

"Resolved, That all amendments adopted by the Conference be placed in the rules by the Collocation Committee, and a final report furnished." The PRESIDENT. The resolution will be again read so that it will be distinctly understood.

The resolution is as follows:

"Resolved, That all amendments adopted by the Conference be placed in the rules by the Collocation Committee, and a final report furnished."

Dr. SIEVEKING (Germany). Mr. President, would it not be advisable to vote upon this resolution to-morrow? For this reason: In any case to prevent a misunderstanding as to the meaning of the resolution which I take it is that the report of the Collocation Committee is to be final in this sense, that no amendments are to be allowed, no amendments whatever, after the final report and final wording of the rules. That is a very great authority to give to the Collocation Committee. I do not know that all the members will agree to that, and I only desire to draw their attention to it. Perhaps they might do it, because the amendments are simple and only a matter of wording which is not very difficult, but I am sure, in order to prevent a misunderstanding, that it is my duty to draw the attention of the Conference to the fact that the meaning of