페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

this resolution is that no amendment will be allowed after the report of the Collocation Committee has been brought in.

Mr. HALL (Great Britain). Mr. President, I take it that this is not the sole meaning of this resolution. I take it that these amendments have been moved and carried, and we have not left a single one of them for the Collocation Committee to deal with. As was pointed out by the learned delegate from the United States, it was desirable that they should be carried here in such form as to be a part of the rules. They will be put into the rules by the Collocation Committee. I apprebend that it is not the intention that the Collocation Committee is to draw up a fresh report, and then that is to be laid on the table, and then forty-eight hours are to be given, and then the final report is to be discussed again. If that were so, may I ask when is the final read. ing to come! If a misprint is found in the general report is that again to be sent to the Collocation Committee, and are they then to present their report, and is there then to be forty-eight hours more elapse, and another discussion, and then another final report ? Really we must come to some conclusion. As my friend, the gallant delegate from France, has pointed out, this is a third reading, and now all that remains to be done is simply clerk's work. I can not help thinking that this is a very reasonable proposition, and if such work is to be done it is better that it should be done by the committee. It is purely clerk's work.

Mr. VERNEY (Siam). Mr. President, I understood by the word final that under no circumstances whatever should any word be altered in their report which was going to be delivered. Perhaps I am wrong, but that is what I understand it to mean. I venture to suggest to this Conference that no such finality can be arrived at until the last amendment has been voted upon, and for this reason: An amendment which is proposed and adopted by the Conference may have some indirect effect upon what has gone before and the Conference may find itself in the position of having passed an interim report as a final report.

Mr. HALL (Great Britain). Mr. President, may I point out that this resolution is dealing with all the amendments that are to be passed by the Conference on the third reading! It is only a proposition that when we have finished these amendments they shall be put into their proper place by the Collocation Committee. Some one will have to do it. The clerk will have to do it or the Secretary will have to do it, and this resoIntion asks the Collocation Committee to do it and they are willing to do it. They are only to carry into effect the decisions of the Conference and insert these amendments in the roles in their proper places. As I say, that is purely clerk's work, and I can not see why it should not be done.

Mr. GOODRICH (United States). Mr. President, I venture to suggest that if there should be any such glaring error or correction as has been suggested, it might be reconsidered, by unanimous consent, or this resoJution might be reconsidered.

Captain RICHARD (France). Mr. President, I do not want the slightest doubt to exist regarding my intention when I proposed this resolution. It was for the purpose of stopping further amendments. The discussion has been very long and sufficiently profound to permit us to look forward to winding up our labors.

Under those circumstances it will be necessary to have a final report. The amendments which have been adopted will be inserted in the new report, which will be a final one, and they will be inserted in such a manner as to express only what their authors intended they should express. We are here to pass judgment upon that point; we will still have the right, as we had in the committees, to express our opinions in regard to the report, and to cause our observations to be inserted at the end of the report, if we deem it necessary. I do not think that this right can be denied us and I therefore ask that the final report be made.

Mr. VERNEY (Siam). I have no objection whatever to that. It was with regard to the word final that I objected. Perhaps I misunderstood it.

Dr. SIEVEKING (Germany). Mr. President, I certainly do not intend to oppose this proposition, being a member of the Collocation Committee. It is a great compliment to the Collocation Committee to have this resolution passed, and so there is no reason for me to oppose it. I only want to draw the attention of the members to the fact that they have placed this confidence in the Collocation Committee. If this proposal has been sufficiently discussed I think we can vote upon it at once.

The PRESIDENT. Does the delegate withdraw his proposition to post

pone it?

Dr. SIEVEKING (Germany). Mr. President, I do not make any proposition to postpone the vote.

Mr. HALL (Great Britain). Mr. President, so far as I can see there is no one who proposes to postpone it. We shall meet at once in the Collocation Committee, if you anthorize us to do it, and deal with the work which bas been done to-day, and put it into the rules this evening.

The PRESIDENT. The Secretary will read the resolution.
The resolution is as follows:

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

The PRESIDENT. Does the delegate from France accept that as his resolution?

Captain RICHARD (France). Yes, sir.

The question was put to the Conference upon the adoption of the resolution, and it was carried.

The Conference thereupon adjourned until Friday, December 20, 1889, at 11 o'clock a. m.

6

WASHINGTON, Friday, December 20, 1889. 11 o'clock a. m. The Conference was called to order at 11 o'clock a. m., Rear-Admiral Franklin in the chair.

The PRESIDENT. Amendment No. 26 is before the Conference. It will be read by the Secretary.

Amendment No. 26 is as follows:

“Amendment to Collocation Report proposed by Dr. Sieveking on bebalf of the German delegation, December 14, 1889.

“In Article 18, strike out paragraph 2, and instead of the word “It' at the beginning of paragraph 3 insert the words This Article."

Captain MALMBERG (Sweden). Mr. President, it was said yesterday by the gallant delegate from Germany that my objection to striking out paragraph 2 of Article 18, and especially the last three lines, was met by the first amendment in the fourth paragraph of the same article; but I do not think so, because this sentence, and also the whole of paragraph 4, refers to steamers crossing and not to steamers meeting, as does the second paragraph. Although the second paragraph is in part a reiteration of the first, it is, in my opinion, a good provision. I have by long experience gained a strong impression that the point of Article 2, as contained in the last three sentences, can never be too much impressed upon the minds of persons in charge of the steamers. I therefore wish that amendment No. 26 may not be accepted by the Confer

[ocr errors]

ence.

The PRESIDENT. The question is upon amendment No. 26. The delegate from Germany being absent, the Chair hesitates to put the rote upon the amendment before he arrives. Does the other delegate from Germany desire the vote to be put in the absence of Captain Mensing!

Dr. SIEVEKING (Germany). Yes, sir; if you please. I do not think it is necessary to postpone taking the vote.

The PRESIDENT. The question is upon the amendment. The Secretary will please read the amendment before taking the vote.

Amendment No. 26 is as follows:

“Amendment to Collocation Report proposed by Dr. Sieveking on behalf of the German delegation, December 14, 1889.

“In Article 18, strike out paragraph 2, and instead of the word 'It' at the beginning of paragraph 3 insert the words This Article.""

The PRESIDENT. Is the Conference ready for the question ?

The question was put to the Conference upon the adoption of amend. ment No. 26, and it was lost.

The PRESIDENT. Amendment No. 27 will now be read by the Secretary.

Amendment No. 27 is as follows:

“ Amendment to Collocation Report proposed by Dr. Sieveking on behalf of the German delegation, December 14, 1889.

“In Article 21, instead of the words, and speed,' insert the words, and where one of two crossing vessels is to keep out of the way, the other shall keep her course and speed.?”

Dr. SIEVEKING (Germany). Mr. President, this is an amendment which I would like to submit to the serious consideration of the Conference. The meaning of it I think is clear. The rule as it stands and as it has been passed by the Conference says: “Where by any of these rules one of two vessels is to keep out of the way, the other shall keep her course and speed." This rule applies to overtaking vessels as well as to vessels crossing. There can not be a doubt about that, because Article 24 says:

“Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules every vessel, overtaking any other, shall keep out of the way of the overtaken vessel.”

2

So an overtaking vessel comes under the rule in Article 21, and an overtaken vessel shall keep her course and speed.

Our amendment is to have the rule under Article 21 limited to cross. ing vessels ; in other words, to take the overtaken vessel out of these rules, so far as to say that the overtaken vessel is to keep her course only and not to keep her course and speed. When we discussed the principle of Article 21, I think the whole discussion turned, so far as I remember, upon the question of crossing vessels.

The reasons given for this rule were taken upon the situation of crossing vessels and no mention whatever has been made of an overtaken vessel. Because that has been the case, we have questioned whether it would be desirable to make the rule apply to overtaken vessels as well as crossing vessels, and we now say it ought not to apply to them for the following reasons. The general principle given by common sense must be that the overtaking vessel ought to direct her movements or manæuvres so as to avoid the overtaken vessel. She is the faster vessel and she looks ahead; and the overtaken vessel, merely taking the principle of common sense, ought not to be compelled in any way to maneuvre so as to assist the overtaking vessel to pass clear. That is the duty of the faster vessel. She ought not in any way to interfere with the intentions or with the movements of the vessel before her.

There are many cases imaginable where the duty of keeping her speed would be an injustice, in my opinion, to an overtaken vessel. I will mention two cases only. When an overtaken vessel is slackening or slowing in order to take a pilot, why should she in any way be prevented from doing so! It is the regular course of her voyage. She has arrived so far now as to be in a position to slow and take a pilot on board, and if the rule is applied as it stands now she would first have to look out to see whether behind her there was an overtaking vessel, and if 80 she would not be allowed to slacken her speed. She would have to proceed until the overtaking vessel has passed clear by her. That is the plain consequence of this rule as it stands, and everybody will say that is wrong. The overtaken vessel of course can not in any way be prevented from slowing in order to take a pilot on board.

There is another case. Take two vessels proceeding up a river, one of which is following in the wake of the other. They are both subject to this rule. The overtaken vessel arrives near the anchoring ground. She is about to drop her anchor and slows, or even stops to drop her anchor. But there is an overtaking vessel behind her, following her. She is not allowed to do so until the overtaking vessel has passed clear by her. Then there may be other vessels following; so, the consequence of the rule as it stands would be that she would have to wait until a happy opportunity occurs that no other vessel is behind her which is overtaking her. That is clearly quite contrary to common

sense.

It might be said the present rule must not be so applied as to lead to a consequence which is incompatible with common sense. But then I say it is better to frame the law in a way which is compatible with common sense than to make a bad law and then leave it to the judges to administer it in the best way they can. As we are legislators here in a certain sense we ought to try to frame the law, if we can, in such a way as to cover these cases. Now, what have we done in our amendment? If we take the overtaken vessels out of the rule of keeping their course and speed, let us see whether there are any consequences which might be of a serious nature, so as to make it inadvisable to adopt this amendment. The cases which I have mentioned would be covered. They would be guarded against.

Are there any consequences which would make it inadvisable to adopt the amendment! If we take the case where an overtaking vessel follows in the wake of the other vessel before her, I do not think there is any situation imaginable where it may be thought necessary to prescribe for the overtaken vessel that she shall keep her speed. Keep her speed means neither slacken nor increase her speed. To increase her speed would only lessen the danger of collision. No vessel slackens her speed unless there is a certain reason for it, as for example the reason which I have just mentioned of taking a pilot on board or dropping an anchor. In the open sea no vessel will slow or slacken her speed unless there are circumstances which compel her to do so. Then, again, the overtak

« 이전계속 »