have quoted, and in this sense I think the plan approved by the Conference should be understood.

Mr. HURTADO. The honorable delegate from the United States has put the case of a vessel entering a port pursued by a privateer, and asks if it would enter because of fuerza mayor, and, in consequence, be exempt from the payment of dues? Mr. Alfonso will be good enough to explain this point with his acknowledged ability.

Mr. ALFONSO. Actually it would be a true case of fuerza mayor, legally it would not, because this law applies only to ordinary cases where there is no breach of law, and certainly not to those where an infraction of law incurs a legal penalty, as would the incendiary, the pirate, or the assassin, who, committing a criminal act, would place themselves in the way of suffering a penalty.

As regards every illegal act, fuerza mayor is evidently not something serving as a safeguard or a preventive of punishment.

Mr. HURTADO. But we speak of a lawful privateer Mr. ALFONSO. Then this privateer would come under the head of fuerza mayor. A slight correction, Mr. President, for I was confused with the question of the privateer. I thought that the case of the privateer was an illegal one, but being legal, naturally I would include it in the general rule. The same would happen, for instance, when, because of a naval engagement one of the contending vessels should seek refuge in a port, that vessel would enter port driven by overwhelming force and therefore would come under fuerza mayor—it was compelled to take this step regardless of the question whether neu

trality would be infringed or not. But, I repeat, I make a difference between a legal and an illegal act. If the privateer does a legal act taking refuge in the port it is evidently compelled by fuerza mayor.

Mr. GUZMAN. I understand this whole question originated in the words fuerza mayor, and as they have given rise to this debate it would be better to suppress them, since both the Spanish and English legislation offer many phrases to express this idea. I see no reason for limiting ourselves to that expression which some delegates think does not express enough and others that it expresses too much. For this reason I believe that by substituting for this phrase another, the resolution would become more definite.

Mr. HURTADO. Will the honorable delegate have the goodness to substitute a word?

Mr. GUZMAN. I am not competent to do it, but having so many learned men here in this Conference I am sure some one can do it for me.

Mr. MENDONÇA. I was just saying that, as a member of the committee, I thought it was proper to give my opinion about the matter. I think the words fuerza mayor, if they do not correspond exactly in common English law to our definition in Latin law or civil law, you could do what you do in other cases where there is no correspondence in the common law with the civil law. You have to adopt an explanation or definition in the Latin law or civil law. All the authorities give the definition that our colleague from Chili has just given. That is the definition of the law, and I think that is the interpretation given to the word by all Latin nations. But to avoid that and use words easily understood by every one, I pro

pose that we use the definition and say, instead of fuerza mayor, just what fuerza mayor means, and that will be understood clearly by all the nations represented in this Conference. We could simply say that it would be an act that could not be foreseen or prevented. If we just insert these words, that will be entirely satisfactory, I think, for all the members.

When my colleague from Colombia presented an amendment yesterday I mentioned to Mr. Quintana that for my part, as a member of the committee, I would accept it on the condition that I could recommend that which I had proposed. I had just proposed something similar. I feared a vessel would go into port under stress of weather, but that port would not be the port of destination of the vessel, and the very fact of the stress of the storm would make that vessel free of the tonnage which it would otherwise have to pay under the law. I recommend, therefore, that vessels under stress of weather, which have been compelled to change their course, be specified. That was, I think, the amendment which I proposed; so when I read the recommendation of my colleague from Colombia, that was my opinion in the matter. For that reason I have just now given the explanation I have. But in regard to the use of the words "fuerza mayor," I think we can give the definition in place of the words. I think that the compulsion, resulting from the act of a pirate, needs a distinction, not being a lawful case. It is not, as he very well said, a legal compulsion, but if the victim has not strength enough to resist and no way of avoiding the pirate, I think it is a case against the pirate. I think also that it is a case of "fuerza

mayor," although not a lawful case. With that limitation, I am entirely of this opinion with regard to the matter: All lawful acts are acts under the "fuerza mayor" compulsion.

Mr. ROMERO. I take the floor simply to say that, carrying out the opinion expressed by the honorable delegate from Brazil, I have written the form the article should have in the following terms:

Vessels which, from any unforeseen and irresistible cause, shall be compelled to put into port, deviating from their That is to say, the phrase fuerza mayor is substituted by "unforeseen and irresistible cause."

course.

Mr. HURTADO. Following the idea of the honorable delegate from Nicaragua, I have no objection to change the phrase "fuerza mayor," and if it is thought that it does not properly express the idea entertained by the Conference, it may be put in this wise:

Vessels putting into port, from whatever justifiable cause or necessity, deviating from their course, shall be exempt from dues.

Mr. COOLIDGE. I would be glad to accept the change suggested by the honorable delegate from Mexico.

SECRETARY WHITEHOUSE. As follows, is article 5, clause 3, of the report of port dues, submitted yesterday:

Vessels which by any unforeseen and irresistible cause shall be compelled to put into port, deviating from their

course.

The FIRST VICE-PRESIDENT. The honorable delegate from Mexico, if the Chair is not in error, has proposed that the Conference resolve that by "fuerza mayor" is meant what in his motion is expressed.

Mr. ROMERO. No, sir; but rather that in case the vote be reconsidered and the point is put to the vote, the third clause, in so far as its wording is concerned, be substituted by that I have proposed.

The FIRST VICE-PRESIDENT. Then it will be necessary to reconsider, not the whole report, but that part.

Mr. ROMERO. Yes, sir; only that part.

The FIRST VICE-PRESIDENT. The honorable delegate from Mexico moves that the third clause of the fifth article of the report approved yesterday be reconsidered.

The vote will be taken on the motion.

The Chair hears no objection.

This part of the report adopted on yesterday will be reconsidered.

The honorable delegate from Mexico moves that in place of the clause approved there be inserted the following:

Vessels which from any unforseen and irresistible cause shall be compelled to put into port, deviating from their

course.

The discussion of the third clause, so worded, is in order.

If no delegate claims the floor the vote will be taken.

If there be unanimous consent the roll will not be called.

The Chair hears no objection.

Shall the clause be adopted as proposed?

The Chair hears no objection.

It is adopted.