« 이전계속 »
Observations.-With regard to this article the British presented the following observation :
The purpose of article 5 is to remove the exemption from responsibility granted by certain legislations, especially the English, in case there is an obligatory pilot on board. A general question is involved here. Therefore, the British Government thinks that article 5 ought to be transferred to the draft of the convention concerning the limitation of liability of shipowners.
In justifying this observation, the British delegation declared that, while reasons of expediency and method induced it to propose these modifications, and while they were essential as far as the signature of the convention was concerned, they did not involve on the part of the British Government any opposition to the principle established by the text of article 5. Under these circumstances the subcommittee proposes to recognize the observation by adding to the convention an additional article worded as follows:
In derogation of article 16 above, it is understood that the provision of article 5, Axing the liability in case a collision is caused by the fault of an obligatory pilot, sball not spontaneously go into force until the high contracting parties have agreed on the limitations of the lability of shipowners.
This text clearly indicates that no derogation is made from existing laws which, in a large number of countries, hold the ship liable for the fault of even an obligatory pilot.
It is settled right now that the powers unanimously agree that an exception shall no longer be made in a case of compulsory pilotage, the only question left unsettled being the enforcement of this provision. Under these circumstances the subcommittee has unanimously recognized that the provisions, adopted provisionally as a measure of expediency, in nowise changed the character of the convention itself.
Article 7.-In article 7, relating to time limits, it has simply been proposed to substitute the word “suspend " for the word "extend." However, after explanations were made, it was realized that it was best to keep the present wording in order better to show that there was no intention of granting a further period of two years in the case treated of in the paragraph of the last article, but merely as much time as might be necessary in order to act when the defending vessel was within the territorial waters of the nation in which the plaintiff had his domicile or headquarters. The scope and purpose of this paragraph were explained in the previous deliberations and reports, to which reference can only be made.
Article 10.–This article was worded as follows:
Subject to subsequent conventions, the present provisions in nowise affect the nature or ertent of the liability of shipowners as regulated in each country nor the obligations arising from transportation contracts or any other contracts.
At the request of the delegation from the United States the subcommittee ananimously declared: (1) That the text of article 10 in nowise affected the provisions of municipal legislation in regard to the exemption clauses in bills of lading such as the Harter Act. (2) That the words “the nature and extent of the liability" relate to the questions which are to constitute the object of the convention on the limitation of the liability. As it appeared that certain doubts might arise in this regard in the law of the United States, the subcommittee agreed to word article 10 as follows:
Subiect to subsequent conventions, the present provisions shall in nowise affect the rules on the limitation of liability of shipowners as established in each country nor the obligations arising from the transportation contract or from any other contracts.
The Japanese delegation observed that the Japanese code, in article 592, provides as follows:
Even an express stipulation can not exempt the shipowner from his liability for the injuries caused through his own fault, through the bad faith or a grave fault of the sea. men or any other employee, or througb the fact that the vessel was not in a seaworthy state at the time of departure.
This provision is extended by article 639 to the transportation of passengers.
The Japanese delegation desired to have it understood that the text of the conventions did not in anywise affect the provisions of the court of commerce of the Empire.
Note was taken of this observation, which is quite in conformity with the spirit of the convention.
Article 12.-In regard to the final paragraph of this article the question was raised whether the municipal law was to be understood as meaning only the written law. The commission was unanimous in declaring that the expression “ municipal law” should be understood here as meaning the written or customary law of the nation.
Article 14.-This article was worded as follows:
The delegates of the high contracting parties shall meet at Brussels three years after the present convention goes into force for the purpose of considering what Improvements might be made therein, and especially in order to extend its sphere of application If possible.
In regard to this article, one Government remarked that it considered it unnecessary to stipulate that a new conference should be held at all events three years after the convention goes into force. It therefore proposed that this article be either omitted or else amended so as to provide that at the expiration of three years the Belgian Government should communicate with the other Governments for the sake of determining whether a new conference would be likely to accomplish any useful purpose.
The subcommittee unanimously proposed, under these circumstances, a re wording as follows:
Each of the high contracting parties shall have the privilege of calling for a new conference at the end of three years from the date on which this convention goes into force for the purpose of considering what improvements might be made therein, and especially in order to extend its sphere of application if possible.
Any power which makes use of this privilege shall be obliged to give notice of its intention to the other powers, through the Belgian Government, which sball proceed to call the conference within six months.
This provision has the advantage of providing for the mode of procedure in case of possible revision of the convention without laying down the imperative obligation of holding a new conference on a fixed date. The right of initiative is insured in an equal manner to all the nations. It is not to be feared that the signatory powers, all animated by the same desire to establish a uniform maritime law, will insist on the holding of a conference if the replies gathered by the Belgian Government show from the start that a demand for revision does not seem to find sufficient support. This is a question of judgment and expediency which ought to be left to the wisdom of the contracting parties.
After ascertaining that this part of the report of Mr. Franck gave rise to no remarks, the president declared it adopted,
MESSAGE OF THE PRESIDENT OF BRAZIL TO THE BRAZILIAN
File No. 832.032/2.
[The message of the President, Marechal Hermes Rodrigues da Fonseca, was read to the Congress May 3, 1911, and transmitted to the Secretary of State May 31 by the American minister, Mr. Dudley. The following is the only passage referring to the United States:]
[Translation. ) On May 17, 1910, at Quito, and at Lima on May 22, Brazil, the United States of America and the Argentine Republic proffered their good offices to the Governments of Peru and Ecuador to prevent an outbreak of hostilities, which seemed imminent, as a result of fighting on the frontier and serious popular demonstrations at Quito, Guayaquil, and Lima. The initiation of this policy was due entirely to the United States of America, while Brazil and Argentina gladly accepted the invitation extended to them by the American Government to take joint and friendly action in the interests of peace. The Government of Chile was requested to use its good offices with the Ecuador Government, which could not take direct action, in view of the fact that its diplomatic relations with Peru had been broken off. The three Governments by their intervention succeeded in bringing the questions at issue to a definite and satisfactory settlement.
On October 4 of last year there were signed in Rio de Janeiro, embodied in an act, five declaratory articles for the demarcation of the frontiers between the United States of Brazil and the Republic of Argentina. This demarcation was effected on November 3, 1900, and October 6, 1904, by the Brazil-Argentine mixed commission as a complement to the arbitration decision of Washington of February 5, 1895, and of the boundary treaty concluded in Rio de Janeiro on October 6, 1898.
On the same day, October 4, 1910, a convention was signed in Buenos Aires as a complement to the said boundary treaty of 1898. It fixes the dividing line on the section of the River Urugu:y which lies between the southwest point of the island known as Brasileira or Quarahim, and the mouth of the River Quarahim.
Ratifications should also be exchanged of the conventions for the interchange of postal orders which we made with France on June 3, 1909, with the United States of America on March 26, with Germany on April 20, and with Italy on December 19, 1910. As far as we are concerned these conventions have already been approved by legislative decrees Nos. 2.359 A, 2.360, 2.361, and 2.362 of December 31, 1910.
JOINT CORRESPONDENCE OF BRAZIL, ARGENTINA, AND THE
PREFERENTIAL TARIFF CONCESSIONS IN FAVOR OF AMERICAN
Ble No. 611.3231/185.
Petropolis, January 2, 1911. The Executive is authorized to grant during 1911 30 per cent reduction in the duty on flour and 20 per cent on one or more other articles of American production.
Parcel post and arbitration conventions with the United States ratified by Congress December 30. Exchange of the ratifications of the former here awaited.
DUDLEY. File No. 611.3231/187.
Petropolis, January 15, 1911. Executive decree 12th grants tariff reduction during 1911 of 30 per cent, an increase on American flour and 20 per cent on remaining 15 items so favored during 1910. Have submitted supplemental list, but further concessions this year improbable. Conclusion of a reciprocity may be proposed.
The Secretary of State to the American Ambassador.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Washington, January 19, 1911. Express this Government's high appreciation of the further tariff reduction on American flour and continuation for other American products of last year's preferential tariff treatment.
Knox. File No. 611.3231/190.
The American Ambassador to the Minister for Foreign Affairs.
Petropolis, January 21, 1911. Mr. MINISTER: I have had the satisfaction of communicating to my Government the substance of the Executive decree No. 8520, of the 12th instant, which continues in force during the calendar rear 1911 the tariff reduction of 20 per cent accorded certain articles of American production upon their importation into Brazil, with the exception of American flour, as to which, in view of the demonstrated insufficiency of that percentage of reduction to place our flour on a competitive basis with other foreign flour in the Brazilian market, and of course mindful at the same time of the magnitude of the importation into the United States of Brazilian products practically all free from duty, your excellency's Government, actuated by a spirit of generous reciprocity, found it proper to increase the former reduction to 30 per cent off the regular duty.
i lo increase of the reduction.
It affords me very great pleasure under the circumstances, and in compliance with a telegraphic instruction which I have just received from Washington, to express to your excellency in the name of the Government of the United States its high appreciation of the further tariff reduction on American flour and the continuation for the other American products of last year's preferential tariff treatment. Be pleased [etc.],
IRVING B. DUDLEY. File No. 611.32318210. The Argentine Minister to the Secretary of State.
Wushington, June 9, 1911,
In connection with the aide-memoire that the Department of State forwarded to the Argentine Legation on May 23 last, the Argentine Government has apprised its minister at Washington that “the Congress, supported by the press of best standing, believes that the menace placed upon the exportation of Argentine flour by the advantages gained by the Government of the United States of America for its flour imported into Brazil has brought occasion for the Argentine Government to defend itself by increasing the import duties on petroleum, lumber, and other staples of American imports." This opinion is shared by the Argentine commercial institutions commanding the wider influence and moral authority, such as the Chamber of the Bourse of Commerce of Buenos Aires, a copy in extenso of whose opinion I had the pleasure to offer confidentially to the Department of State. It is deemed possible that the Government of the United States may renew its demands and succeed in having the bonus raised to 40 or 50 per cent, which would create an insuperable barrier to Argentine exportation. The Argentine Government, which is, now as always, most keenly interested in eliminating any cause of dissent or misunderstanding that could mar the profound sympathy and close friendship which bind the people and the Government of the United States of America to the people and Government of the Argentine Republic, and to the strengthening of which it has avowedly and repeatedly devoted its best efforts, desires to check the “ retaliations contemplated by the Congress," and to that end it must
1 Not printed. See 611.3231/209a. 44773°—F 1911— 8