get into a difficulty if we adopt such a course, because there are two distinct propositions in the report. One is that the committee adhere to its former action with regard to the lights of steamers, and the other proposition is that it is not desirable to pass this rule unless it can be accepted universally. I understand that the report of the Committee on Lights is that they do not recommend that this amendment be accepted, unless there is reason to suppose that the rule will be adopted universally. That, I apprehend, is the purpose and intent of their report. I can not help thinking that the proper course for us to pursue is to vote yea or nay upon the amendment of the delegate from Norway, which was brought before us on a motion for reconsideration. I therefore move that the question be upon the amendment of the delegate from Norway which is up for reconsideration by us this morning.

Captain MENSING (Germany). Mr. President, I would like to submit that if the vote were taken upon the report of the Committee on Lights, the German delegates would vote against it, simply because in the report of the Committee on Lights there has not been pointed out in a practical way any proposition which is made or any time fixed for the introduction of the rule. It is quite impossible to take the report of the Committee on Lights as it stands, and insert it into the rules at any place. I think the proposition made by my colleague, Dr. Sieveking, covers the whole point. It gives the Conference all that is important and attainable, and I think it would show the direction in which we would like to have this matter move. I do not doubt that in a few years we will be in a much better position to discuss this proposition than we are at present. We do not know when this rule is to come into force. If it is put into Appendix B, the different nations may at once issue regulations to their supervisors to see that, so far as possible, those rules mentioned in Appendix B are carried out, and it will come into use much sooner than the rules can be put into force all over the world. Therefore, the German delegates will vote against the report, because there is no proposition made in it, and because in this form we find it is impossible that it should be adopted in the rules.

Mr. VERNEY (Siam). Mr. President, may I ask whether we should depart from our universal rule? May I ask the learned delegate from Germany whether he will not allow his resolution to come first?

Dr. SIEVEKING (Germany). Mr. President, I think it is a mere matter of courtesy. I think it is but fair to the delegate from Norway to put his amendment to a vote. If the amendment is carried, the resolution will fall to the ground.

The PRESIDENT. Does the delegate from Great Britain accept the resolution of the delegate from Germany, that the question should be put upon the amendment of the delegate from Norway?

Mr. HALL (Great Britain). Mr. President, I understand that my learned friend the delegate from Germany, who moved the resolution, wishes the division to be taken first on the amendment, and therefore, that perhaps should be done.

The PRESIDENT. The Chair wishes to do what the Conference desires. The question will then be upon the amendment of the delegate from Norway. Is the Conference ready for the question?

Lieutenant BEUAGENCY (Chili). Mr. President, I would like to have the amendment of the honorable delegate from Norway postponed until after considering the resolution of the delegate from Germany.

The PRESIDENT. The resolution can be considered after the vote upon the amendment. The question is upon the amendment of the delegate from Norway.

The question was put to the Conference upon the amendment of the delegate from Norway, and it was lost.

The PRESIDENT. The question will now be upon the resolution of the delegate from Germany, which will be read by the Secretary.

The resolution of the delegate from Germany is as follows:

"Resolved, That it is approved by the Conference and recommended to the attention of the powers represented thereat, that green and red side lights should be placed in steam vessels not forward of the masthead light, and that this resolution be inserted in Appendix B of the report of the Committee on the Collocation of Rules."

Mr. HALL (Great Britain). Mr. President, I desire to state on behalf of Great Britain that we shall support that resolution. We think it most desirable to favor any matter that shall be brought before this Conference which we believe will lead to good, and will lead the powers to investigate the matter and make rules in accordance with the results of experiments and experience. The sole reason, if I may say so, why we have opposed the amendment which has been dealt with, is that it is a rule dealing with vessels at the present time, and not to merely pointing out advice for the future. We wish to advance the investigation of this very important matter, and we shall give our very cordial support to this resolution, as we should have done at the outset if the matter had been brought forward in the manner in which it is now.

Captain RICHARD (France). Mr. President, the delegation which I represent have decided to vote for the amendment proposed by the learned Dr. Sieveking, because it is the only means, I think, of harmonizing the report of the committee and the amendment presented by Mr. Flood. From a practical standpoint we can not go any further. We can not adopt the amendment of Mr. Flood, because that would lead us to do a thing which is not practicable. If, therefore, we accept the amendment of Dr. Sieveking, we show that we adopt the principle proposed by Mr. Flood, which has been adopted both by the Conference and by the committee, to the extent allowed us by practical requirements. In that manner I think we will sanction it in the only manner possible to us. For that reason, I repeat, we will vote for this amendment.

The PRESIDENT. The question is upon the resolution of the delegate from Germany. It will be read again by the Secretary.

The resolution of the delegate from Germany is as follows:

"Resolved, That it is approved by the Conference and recommended to the attention of the Powers represented thereat, that the green and red de-lights should be placed in steam-vessels not forward of the ead light, and that this resolution be inserted in Appendix B to the report of the Committee on Collocation of the Rules."

Mr. FLOOD (Norway). Mr. President, may I ask for information, whether when this is voted on there will be another vote as to what shall be done with sailing vessels?

The PRESIDENT. The Chair does not so understand it.

Mr. FLOOD (Norway). Is it understood now, sir, that by the vote sailing vessels are thrown out of the question altogether?

The PRESIDENT. Unless there is some additional proposition, that I will be the case.

Mr. FLOOD (Norway). Mr. President, may I ask the question whether there is any chance to put in a proposition with regard to that now, or is it too late?

The PRESIDENT. The Chair decides that a proposition of that kind is in order at any time the Conference is in session. The question now is upon the resolution which has just been read.

The question was put to the Conference upon the adoption of the resolution of the delegate from Germany, and it was adopted.

The PRESIDENT. There has been no disposition made of the additional report of the Committee on Lights. It is still before the Conference, and there must be some disposition made of it on the records, as it has been considered by the Conference.

Mr. HALL (Great Britain). Mr. President, I apprehend that there being no proposal made upon this, it will merely appear upon the minutes of our proceedings as having been handed to you, as President; and of course it will take its place among the various documents and can be studied by the Powers.

The PRESIDENT. It has been called up and has been under consideration. Therefore I think it might be inserted in the minutes as having been considered by the Conference.

Mr. HALL (Great Britain). Mr. President, I would submit that that should be done.

The PRESIDENT. It is moved that the additional report of the Committee on Lights be inserted in the minutes as having been considered by the Conference.

The question was put to the Conference upon the motion as above, and the motion was carried.

The PRESIDENT. The next business in order will be the report of the Collocation Committee.

Mr. HALL (Great Britain). Mr. President, I apprehend that the next matter before the Conference is that we should determine whether or not the amendments in the nature of amendments on principle should

be discussed by the Conference. Might I perhaps ask the indulgence of the Conference if I say a very few words on this point. The delegates will see that the Collocation Committee have separated the amendments, as they were requested to do, into two classes. We have separated those in principle from those which are mere questions of verbiage, and the delegates now have before them, bound up together, these two classes. As I say, it was agreed that the question should be considered whether or not amendments on questions of principle should be considered and entertained by the Conference, and it was pointed out that any gentleman moving or asking for leave to have amendments on principle discussed should confine his observations to as short a space of time as possible.

Now, Mr. President, I apprehend that really we can shorten this very considerably if we make up our minds what course we wish to pursue. With regard to Great Britain I may say this: We are anxious that every matter which any delegate thinks it right to bring up for discus. sion again should be thoroughly discussed. We do not wish by a mere majority, which we could do under the present rule, to throw out any question which a delegate, taking upon himself the responsibility for taking up the time of the Conference, thinks it right to bring before us, and accordingly we do not intend to vote against one single one of these amendments on principle being entertained by the Conference. As I say we shall leave it to the delegates to consider whether or not they are jus tified in occupying the time of the Conference in such discussion. Therefore I venture to make this suggestion, that the mover of each amend ment, instead of making an introductory speech upon the matter, which can lead to nothing, because we are not empowered by our rules to discuss the amendments of principle here to-day-we can not discuss them until Wednesday-but if the mover of each amendment will move pro forma the adoption of his amendment and then wait to see whether there is any objection to proceeding to the discussion of it when the proper time arrives, it will save a great deal of time. We shall thus avoid speeches being made a second time.

I think myself that we are all of us practically actuated by the desire to have these important matters thrashed out to the utmost and thoroughly considered. If so, I apprehend that there will not be much disposition to vote against the discussion of these amendments in principle, although a great many of us may feel, certainly with regard to some of them, that they have been adequately discussed and adequately disposed of. But having regard to our desire that the matter should be thoroughly dealt with, I would venture to suggest that the mover of each amendment should merely move pro forma that the amendment, for instance, No. 1, should be considered by the Conference and then wait to see whether any one objects. If there be no objection it can be put to a vote at once and we can get through with a vote on what is purely a formal matter of business, and then be able to go on with the other matters before us.

Dr. SIEVEKING (Germany). Mr. President, may we not go a step further and resolve that all the amendments of principle which have been handed in are to be reconsidered? I think that would save a great deal of time. I would like to move that the Conference resolve to take into reconsideration all of the amendments brought in under Class 2. Then we could go on with the discussion of the amendments the day after to-morrow, after forty-eight hours have elapsed, and we could take some of the committee reports to-day to occupy our time.

Mr. HALL (Great Britain). Mr. President, I will willingly second that proposal. I confess that I had not seen the way to cut the Gordian knot which my learned friend has pointed out. As I said before, I think we are all anxious that every delegate should have his opinion thoroughly considered and discussed; and therefore I second the resolution of my learned friend the delegate from Germany that we may discuss the matters proposed in Class 2 when the time arrives for that discussion. The PRESIDENT. It is moved that the Conference agree to discuss all the amendments, from one to thirty-two, inclusive, of Class 2.

The question was put to the Conference upon the motion of the delegate from Germany, and it was carried.

The PRESIDENT. The next business in order is the report of the Committee on Life-Saving Systems and Devices.

The Secretary will please read the report.

The report of the Committee on Life-Saving Systems and Devices is as follows:

"Report of the Committee on. Life-Saving Systems and Devices.

"WASHINGTON, December 5, 1889.

"To Rear-Admiral S. R. FRANKLIN, U. S. Navy,

"President of the International Marine Conference, etc.: "SIR: The Committee on Life-Saving Systems and Devices, appointed under a resolution of the Marine Conference, were at first in doubt whether the terms of the resolution gave them authority to consider and report upon all the topics embraced in General Division 5 of the programme, but the subsequent action of the Conference in appointing committees to report upon all the subjects of the other divisions, yet making no further provision for those of General Division 5, seemed clearly to imply that it was intended that this committee should deal with them. They have accordingly done so, and herewith submit their report. The various subjects will be taken up in their order upon the programme.

"1. Saving of life and property from shipwreck at sea. "(a) Duties of vessels after collision.'

"What these duties are is obvious enough. Common humanity requires that the colliding vessels should remain by each other and render all needed assistance so long as they can do so consistently with their own safety. Experience shows, however, that masters of vessels frequently take advantage of the circumstances attending such disasters to escape from the scene without identification, in order to avoid responsibility. Several of the maritime nations have, therefore, imposed upon them the legal obligation of performing these natural duties. The ex