and it has been discussed to quite a considerable extent. I wish to say that if I vote against this amendment it will not be because I do not consider it to be a most useful signal, but I shall vote against it because I believe that under the circumstances of the German shipping trade it will be a great hardship to introduce sound-signal instruments for producing a long note on the fog-horn.

The PRESIDENT. The question is upon the amendment of the delegate from France.

Mr. GOODRICH (United States). Mr. President. I call for the yeas and nays.

The PRESIDENT. The yeas and nays are called for. The amendment will be read for the information of the Conference.

Captain MALMBERG (Sweden). Mr. President, may I be allowed to say a few words before the vote is taken? I, for my part, have suffered perhaps under a misapprehension about the signal suggested to be made by a sailing vessel towing. I stated yesterday the reason why I withdrew my proposition for such a signal, because as I read this section g, I thought that a sailing vessel towing would have to make the signal according to Article 14, with regard to the way in which the ship was heading according to the wind, and then, in addition, give the signal of a sailing ship towing, the additional signal to tell that she was towing. But if this proposed signal, to be made by a sailing vessel towing, is to be made instead of the signal contained in Article 14, then the question stands in my opinion, in quite a different light. If by giving a sailing vessel towing this signal, you dispense with the signal to be made under Article 14, it is quite a different thing; and I wish to put before the Conference the question before the vote is taken in regard to this matter. If I am to understand that the signal to be made is to dispense with the signal under Article 14, then I will vote for the adoption of the signal; but if the signals are to be made according to Article 14 and with this additional signal also, I will vote No. I would like to have that point clear before I vote.

The PRESIDENT. Does the delegate from Sweden propose that as an amendment?

Captain MALMBERG (Sweden). Mr. President, I ask to have the point made clear by the Committee on Sound-Signals, whether it is to be understood that the proposed signal for a sailing vessel towing is to overrule the signals to be made under Article 14 as to how the ship is heading, relative to the wind; because I find it, for my part, quite necessary to have this question clearly answered.

Admiral NARES (Great Britain). Mr. President, when I spoke before in the early part of this morning I distinctly said that this would follow afterwards. But it is a question whether we could not take a vote now on the principle of a sailing ship having a signal, and then the question whether that signal is to be coupled with the signal which she makes under subsection c. I have worked out how the article would stand;

but I do not want to put it before the Conference now, because really the matter is getting so complicated that we are getting much into the same way as we were yesterday. There is a distinct provision before the Conference. Let us settle that. We can discuss the other question afterwards to bring things together.

Captain MALMBERG (Sweden). Mr. President, if the vote should be that no such signal shall be given, that subject can not be brought up again, and, therefore, I think it is quite necessary to settle that question first. As the proposal now is I can not vote, because I do not know how I am voting. If it be voted that a signal is to be given to a sailing ship, it makes a great deal of difference to me whether the signal is to be made so as to override the signal provided for in Article 14.

Mr. GOODRICH (United States). Mr. President, I suppose it will follow as a matter of course that if this proposal of the gallant delegate from France is voted on affirmatively and the words "a sailing vessel" put back into paragraph g, it will follow that the signal required by this article, if it should be finally adopted, would override the provisions of Article 14, because this is a specific case and defines the circumstances which have arisen under it beyond those which are embraced in Article 14; so that the signal given by this article must be given in a fog to the exclusion of any signal under Article 14. That, I understand, is the question propounded by the gallant delegate for Sweden.

Captain MALMBERG (Sweden). Mr. President, I want to have it clear to my mind, because if it says that a sailing vessel towing is to make her signal relating to the wind, then I object to introducing an additional signal. But if it is to be understood that she is not to make that signal, and the Conference does not think there is any need of stating it in the rules, and if it is supposed to be quite clear that this rule is to override Article 14, then I will vote for the proposition.

Mr. GOODRICH (United States). Mr. President, let me say that it follows that if this Conference vote to put a sailing vessel within the provisions of subdivision g, they will give her a signal which will override the signal contained in Article 14.

Mr. HALL (Great Britain). Mr. President, that is a matter which is very easily met with, as my gallant colleague has already said, that if this question be carried in the affirmative it will be for a signal instead of the ordinary signal provided by clauses a and b.

Captain MALMBERG (Sweden). Mr. President, I understand the question and I am ready to vote.

The PRESIDENT. The yeas and nays will be called on the amendment of the delegate from France, which will be read.

12.

The amendment of the delegate from France is as follows:

To restore the words "and a sailing vessel" in paragraph g, Article

The PRESIDENT. The vote stands 18 in the affirmative and 5 in the negative; so the proposition is carried.

The question now will be upon paragraph g as amended.

Mr. GOODRICH (United States). Mr. President. May I ask whether the gallant delegate from Great Britain, Sir George Nares, has not another proposal to make before this proposition is adopted as to the signal to be given, or as to whether it is to be permissive or not?

Mr. HALL (Great Britain). Mr. President, now that the Conference has decided that this signal shall be given, it is necessary to consider whether or not a vessel or vessels towed shall give a signal also. We have considered very carefully what fell both from the delegate from Norway and the gallant delegate from the United States with regard to making such a signal compulsory, and the conclusion we have come to is this: Of course it would not be necessary for one vessel being towed to make the signal, because immediately when any vessel hears another vessel giving a towing signal she knows that the vessel has got a tow behind her. But we think that where there is more than one vessel under tow, which we are told is frequently the case, it is desirable that the vessels composing that tow should give the signal. Therefore, in order to meet the views of the delegate from Norway and the gallant delegate of the United States, we have this amendment to propose, which would probably meet the views of both; put at the end of the clause the following: "When more than one vessel is being towed, each vessel towed shall sound this signal on hearing the sound-signal of an approaching vessel."

Mr. GOODRICH (United States). On her fog-horn.

Mr. HALL (Great Britain). It may be a whistle or fog-horn.

Mr. GOODRICH (United States). Let me call your attention to the fact that in the first article as it is at present adopted, the word foghorn has been stricken out.

Mr. HALL (Great Britain). It must come back again if the sailing vessel is to be included. Iam now only dealing with the signal to be given by the vessel towed. I quite agree that the word "fog-horn" will have to come into the article. It comes in ipso facto by the amendment which has been carried; but I am dealing with a different principle now. I am dealing

with the principle as to whether or not the vessel towed is to give the sigual. By the report of the committee it was made optional. It was pointed out yesterday by the delegate from the United States and the delegate from Norway that it was desirable that it should be compul. sory in certain cases, so that any one approaching a vessel towing should know where the end of the tow was. Therefore, we thought this would meet all of these requirements. If the Conference will allow me I will read it again.

"When more than one vessel is being towed, each vessel towed shall sound this signal on hearing the sound-signal of an approaching ship."

Captain RICHARD (France). Mr. President, in so far as I have been able to understand, the Conference, by adopting the amendment which I proposed, has declared itself in favor of the principle which I have heretofore advocated. This principle was to confer upon the towing vessel alone the right and the obligation to signal her presence, whereas the same right was denied the vessel or the vessels in tow, whatever might be their number or the length of their hawsers. This was the principle upon which my amendment was based. If we should now adopt the proposition of the learned delegate of Great Britain, we would again take up the original draughting of the Committee on SoundSignals, and the entire discussion may have to begin over again.

When a towing vessel signals her presence, she thereby indicates that she is towing one or more vessels. This signal has been given to the towing vessel, whether she be a steam or a sailing vessel, in order to no longer consider the signal to be given by the vessel in tow, and thereby doing away with the difficulty which it is very hard to overcome. Will the Conference now give to the vessel in tow the same sound-signal as to the towing vessel, or shall we give her a different sound-signal! Yesterday the complaint was made that the number of efficient sound-signals was too limited. If the vessel in tow is given the same signal as the towing vessel, is it not likely that, when several vessels are being towed by another, there will be very great confusion? If all these vessels make sound-signals, how will it be possible to distinguish the position of the towing vessel? I think that it would be wiser to reject this amendment.

Captain NORCROSS (United States). Mr. President, it seems to me that there is an easy way out of the difficulty regarding this signal by towed vessels. I must reiterate my objection to giving the same fog. signal as the steamer as being dangerous, which must be plain to the nautical members for the following reason: Let us suppose a steamer going out from west or coming in from east and hearing two, three, or four sound-signals ahead and absolutely the same;-she would be in doubt which way the tow was proceeding. I certainly think it necessary that the towed vessel should make some signal, and I would suggest that the steamer should give a long blast and the vessel towed a

long blast followed by one short blast. Here is a distinct signal, which serves two purposes. The steamer signal shows which end she is on and consequently which way she is going, and the signal from the tow will tell unmistakably how many vessels there are being towed. I believe this special signal has not been adopted anywhere else, and I submit the above for consideration.

The PRESIDENT. If you make any proposition, hand it in as an amendment, and it will be considered by the Conference.

Mr. FLOOD (Norway). Mr. President, I am sorry to say that the amendment proposed by the learned delegate from England does not suit me very well. He proposes to put in that every vessel towed, when there is more than one, shall repeat the signal given by the towing vessel. I think that the great danger lies just as much in towing one vessel as in towing several vessels. One vessel can be at the end of a long tow; as I pointed out yesterday, one vessel was at the end of about 1,500 feet. I think it is as necessary for one vessel to sound the signal as for several. It might happen that there would be three or four small vessels towed, and according to this rule they would all of them be sounding fog-signals. As pointed out yesterday, I think that common sense might come in somewhere, and in case of three, or four, or five vessels being towed, I should think that commonsense would direct that one or two of these only should sound the signal, and not the whole lot of them be sounding in the ears of each other. It would be compulsory if this rule should be adopted as proposed by the learned delegate from England.

I very much wish that my amendment as proposed yesterday could be accepted by the Conference; but if it meets with objection I am willing to strike it out, if I can only get rid of those words "if nec essary." The paragraph then would read: "And a vessel towed may at intervals of not more than two minutes." I pointed out yesterday that the words "if necessary" were awfully objectionable to me, be cause it is impossible for a man in a fog to decide for himself whether the necessity exists or not. When I am blindfolded I have to feel my way, and if I want to go in a fog I must use sound-signals. But the courts will in every instance take up those words "if necessary" and condemn the sailor if he does not make the signal. I do not like to have the poor sailor keel-hauled in the courts in that way, as is often done.

The PRESIDENT. May I ask what are the actual words which are suggested by the delegate?

Mr. FLOOD (Norway). Mr. President, I suggest that the whole paragraph be as it is at present, only that the words "if necessary" be stricken out.

Mr. HALL (Great Britain). Mr. President, may I point out that I submitted this amendment after great consideration to try and meet the suggestion of the delegate from Norway yesterday, that this signal