to the man who is, in the first instance, required to decide what they mean. Now, let us see if we are going to put any difficulty in the way. Here is a master coming into a harbor, when a fog suddenly shuts down upon him. There having been no fog before, and perhaps no reason to anticipate a fog, he has not his soundings exactly. He has been sailing by the shore line. He has been sailing, if at night, by the shore-lights, and he is called upon to anchor by reason of a fog. What has he to do! He has first to decide where he is, whether he is in a fair-way, or whether he is not in a fair-way, and according as he decides that question, he is to give a proper signal. Suppose the fog has been threatening and he wishes to sail on through a light fog. You are to make the anchored ship decide where she is and to give notice to a vessel approaching as to where she is, when that vessel knows just as well as she does and has the same chance to know. The difficulty is that you are making the sailor decide as to what his position is and what signal he should give. If you do not give enough notice by the signal which we have already adopted, then change the signal to the one which is proposed in the report of the committee.

Captain DONNER (Germany). Mr. President, I must declare that I formerly was in favor of this new rule, but upon hearing the arguments advanced, my opinion has altered, and I am now ready to say that the Conference will make a great mistake if they allow this new rule to pass. The reason is this: We are legislating for exceptions. That is wrong in the beginning. Such a case is only an exceptional one. Of course ships sometimes may anchor in the open sea, but generally they do not do it, and to make a special law in these regulations for exceptions does not seem to be right. There is another point to which I wish to call attention. If you hear in the open sea two prolonged blasts and a bell, what is to tell you that you have one ship or two ships before you, if you don't see them? I would say that we are producing a new danger. A man might say, "Here is one ship making two blasts, and here is another ship close by at anchor." How is he to manœuvre, and what is he to do? I therefore really think that this article should be left out altogether.

Captain SHACKFORD (United States). Mr. President, I merely want to say to my learned colleagues that the six sailors on this committee had no difficulty at all in arranging this and seeing through it clearly. It was only after it got into the hands of the Conference here and the lawyers got to twisting it around that we failed to understand it.

Mr. HALL (Great Britain). Mr. President, as yet I have not heard from any sailor who was on that committee that the arguments have induced him to change his opinion. I do not understand that the gallant delegate from the United States has changed his opinion in regard to the matter. I presume that the committee treated this matter very carefully. If I vote for this proposition I shall vote for it as being the report of the committee. I quite see that there are arguments against

it, as there will be against everything, and those arguments have been advanced as powerfully as they can be. But this is a carefully considered report of the committee, which has thoroughly inquired into the subject, and at present I can see no reason for not adopting that report. Admiral NARES (Great Britain). Mr. President, before the question is put, may I say on the part of the committee that if this signal is not carried it will mean that vessels anchored in these general places are left only with their bells to give warning to one another.

Mr. VERNEY (Siam). Mr. President, may I suggest to the gallant delegate who has just sat down whether, perhaps, the opinions of everybody might be met if some single signal rather better than that which is now adopted could be discovered to cover all cases? I am merely following out the suggestion which was foreshadowed by the learned del. egate of the United States.

Admiral NARES (Great Britain). Mr. President, I can easily give you any amount of signals; but the difficulty is to give people memories to take the signals in. That we can not do. We have adopted this signal as a danger-signal. Whenever you hear a vessel sounding two prolonged blasts it is a known danger on the ocean. We have adopted that. Now, we only go one step beyond that and couple with it the known signal of a vessel at anchor. Now, there is very little for the memory to take in in that proposition; it will be long before a new signal becomes generally known. The committee must stand or fall, if you please, upon this signal which we have adopted.

Mr. HALL (Great Britain). May I ask the delegate from Siam whether he can suggest a signal.

Mr. VERNEY (Siam). I am not a member of the Collocation Committee. Mr. CARTER (Hawaii). Mr. President, it does seem to me that the committee has followed out the logical result of the action of the Conference, and the practice on the sea. A vessel anchored in this exposed condition does constitute a danger on the sea, and she is to sound her blasts. She is a danger at anchor, and she rings her bell to show that she is at anchor. It seems to me a very simple proposition, and I confess that I have not been swayed at all from that idea by the arguments which I have heard.

Captain SAMPSON (United States). Mr. President, suppose that this rule is adopted. Suppose that the person in command of the ship has anchored in a fog. Now imagine a case where he thinks he should make the ordinary signal of a ship at anchor. Another vessel approaching him would be misled, because he would argue: If that ship is in a fair-way or if that ship is in any danger of being run into by my vessel she would make the signal which is required by this subsection f. But if she only makes the ordinary signal she is out of my way. And the consequence would be that the vessel would be run down, simply because we have got another rule. If the rule which we have already adopted covers both cases, the approaching vessel would know that

there was a vessel at anchor somewhere in her way and she would be careful and cautious to avoid her. Subsection f, as mentioned by the different speakers, seems to touch either the sea, the harbor, or a fairway, so that it is very difficult to find out what its application is. That is one of the fundamental objections to it, that it is not sufficiently definite to enable the master of a ship to say that he should make one signal or the other. There may be many cases where he would be certain which signal to make, but there will be cases where he will be uncertain, and where he might make a mistake which would be fatal.

Mr. CARTER (Hawaii). Mr. President, may I point out that the amendment of the learned delegate from Great Britain meets that objection?

Captain SAMPSON (United States). The spirit of it is the same. There are two signals to indicate a ship at anchor, and that I think is objectionable.

Captain RICHARD (France). Mr. President, so far as I can judge, the intention of the committee in proposing paragraph f, is to give to the vessels at anchor in fair-ways, where they are more exposed to collision, greater security than that enjoyed by vessels at anchor under ordinary circumstances. I venture to say that the bell is not a sufficiently powerful instrument to give sufficient security. But what will be the consequence of the proposed rule, if it is adopted? In my opinion it will become imperative to give the same signal to all vessels at anchor wherever they may be. Then the old proverb will immediately be recalled: "Qui peut le plus peut le moins;" that is to say, inasmuch as you intend to give additional security to vessels in frequented fair-ways because the bell is not sufficient security, why not give the same security to all other vessels at anchor which have bells of the same character, and which are also exposed, although to a less degree, to similar positions. The problem is therefore this, to give to an anchored vessel a sufficient signal. Have we for that purpose a proper sound-signal? I do not think so, and I do not observe any with the means now at our disposal. For that reason I object to these distinctions between vessels at anchor in some places and vessels at anchor in others. This may lead to further particularizing, and for each new case it will be necessary to find a new signal.

The PRESIDENT. The last proposition with regard to this article was by the delegate from Great Britain.

Captain SHACKFORD (United States). Mr. President, if this article should read, "at anchor in the open sea," I would like to know if it would meet the objections of the gentlemen.

Mr. HALL (Great Britain). Mr. President, the words which I propose would include the open sea.

Captain SHACKFORD (United States). Mr. President, the opinion seems to be that the words "in a fair-way" should be stricken out.

The PRESIDENT. If the delegate has a proposition to make he will be

kind enough to make it in writing, so that it can be placed before the Conference.

Captain SHACKFORD (United States). Mr. President, I move that the article read:

"A vessel, if a steam vessel, at anchor in the open sea, shall at intervals of not more than two minutes sound two prolonged blasts with her whistle or siren, followed by ringing her bell, etc."

Mr. GOODRICH (United States). Mr. President, there is a great difficulty about that, I suggest. It puts upon the sailor the difficulty of deciding what the open sea is. There is some difficulty in deciding what is the open sea, and where the limit of territory commences and where it ends. It strikes me that some nations have had very grave question upon that subject, on both sides of this hemisphere.

Mr. HALL (Great Britain). Mr. President, for that reason I proposed the words which I have the honor to propose, and I confess I prefer them to the words of the delegate from the United States. The words are, "If she is not in ordinary anchorage ground or is in such a position as to be in the way of vessels using the ordinary channel "I want to make one remark with regard to what has fallen from the gallant delegate from the United States. He said, "A man may be mistaken as to where he is." Granted. But no court of law that I know of in any civilized country will ever hold a man to blame for not doing a thing unless he knew or ought to know that it was his duty. Then he will be perfectly excusable if he gives the wrong signal, being under a misapprehension, when he has only done what he believed to be right. You can not hold a man to blame for breaking a rule if he does not know what he ought to do. He must act as a reasonable sailor, and nothing else.

Captain SAMPSON (United States). He might lose his vessel.
Mr. HALL (Great Britain). He might lose that anyhow.

The PRESIDENT. The motion of Captain Shackford will now be read. Captain NORCROSS (United States). Mr. President, I prefer the words as they stand here, "In a fair-way at sea."

Captain SHACKFORD (United States). Mr. President, I withdraw my amendment in favor of the amendment of the delegate from Great Britain.

The PRESIDENT. The question now is upon the amendment of the delegate from Great Britain, which will be read.

The amendment is as follows:

"A vessel, if a steam-vessel, if she is not in the ordinary anchorage ground, or in such a position as to be in the way of a vessel using the ordinary channel, shall at intervals of not more than two minutes sound two prolonged blasts with her whistle or siren, followed by ringing her bell; or, if a sailing vessel, two blasts with her fog-horn, followed by ringing her bell."

Mr. GOODRICH (United States). Mr. President, I think, as my friend on my right says, that this is worse than it was before. What would

you call a vessel traversing, the track of the North Atlantic steam-ships, if there is such a track? Would you include that in the word channel! Hardly, under the general acceptation of the term; and yet I suppose that the delegate from Great Britain intends it to be included in his amendment.

Mr. HALL (Great Britain). Mr. President, the officer in command of a vessel can generally have a pretty good idea as to whether or not he is anchored in a place where he is liable to be in the way of vessels which ordinarily ply in that neighborhood. A man must know whether he is at anchor in an ordinary anchorage ground or in a place where he is liable to cause danger, and it is proper that he should be allowed to give a warning signal so as to show vessels that the way is not clear, as they would otherwise expect it to be.

Captain SAMPSON (United States). Mr. President, it seems to me that the wording of the amendment as it stands now is less objectionable than it would be as amended by the learned delegate from Great Britain, because the words which he has introduced bring the limit of the area in which this signal must be made much nearer to the shore. It brings it within the ordinary channels of a river or harbor. The amendment as it stands now, says "a fair-way at sea." The term "at sea" may be indefinite, but still to my mind there is much less objection to adopting this special signal under such circumstances than there would be if we brought its limit into channels and rivers, nearer the shore than is provided for in the amendment as it stands now.

The PRESIDENT. The question is upon the amendment of the delegate from Great Britain, which will be read for the information of the Conference.

The amendment is as follows:

"A vessel, if a steam-vessel, if she is not in the ordinary anchorage ground or is in such a position as to be in the way of a vessel using the ordinary channel, shall at intervals of not more than two minutes sound two prolonged blasts with her whistle or siren, followed by ringing her bell; or, if a sailing vessel, two blasts with her fog-horn followed by ringing her bell."

Mr. GOODRICH (United States). Mr. President, I would like to ask the learned delegate from Great Britain what he means by the word "channel."

Mr. HALL (Great Britain). Mr. President, I will answer the learned delegate at once. I think I could possibly make an alteration to meet that possible difficulty by using the words "a fair-way at sea,” and inserting the words "if not in the ordinary anchorage ground." So as to make it read: "When she is not in the ordinary anchorage ground, or in such a position as to be an obstruction to vessels in a fair-way at sea.” Mr. GOODRICH (United States). Mr. President, I think that will be a good deal more definite. Will you repeat that once more?

Mr. HALL (Great Britain). Make it read: "If she is not in the ordi