has already been too long drawn out and which diminishes in interest to the Conference, since it has ended by individualizing itself in two tariffs. They, like the treaties of reciprocity, are subjects for governments rather than for a conference, since they do not influence the entire continent.

I end the discussion, then, hoping that my illustrious friend, General Henderson, may be willing to accept the assurances of the pleasure I have experienced in listening to his defense of his convictions, and stating the reasons which gave rise to the debate which he has carried on so ably on his part.

Mr. ALFONSO. I have asked the attention of the Conference in order to affirm my opinion, heretofore expressed, upon this subject, and to explain my reasons for voting contrary to the majority report of the committee.

It is well known that there was no disagreement in opinion as regards a Customs Union. All the members of the committee were of opinion that such a plan was not practicable. The division was upon the point of recommending reciprocity treaties. While the majority were in favor of this, the minority, composed of the delegate from the Argentine Republic and myself, considered the idea as out of place.

I have believed, and continue to believe, that this assembly has not the power to make this recommendation.

The International American Conference was convened for the purpose of discussing measures of common interest to all the nations here represented, but by no means to interfere with subjects which might raise questions between the several nations of the

continent. It would serve no purpose to advise a nation to make reciprocity extradition treaties, because, for example, this enters into the natural order of affairs of each country. The International Conference could not have had such an object; consequently recommending the celebration of treaties of one or another kind between nations does not enter into its functions. Yet I do not wish to be understood as pronouncing against these treaties; they may be very useful, but I think there is a mistake in believing that this recommendation will lead to the establishment of the desired Customs Union.

Therefore, I am of opinion that the Conference should decide against the majority report of the committee.

The PRESIDENT. What order will the Conference further take? Is the Conference ready for the question? The resolution of the majority will be read in both languages.

(The resolution was read, as directed.)

The resolution of the minority will be read.

(The minority resolution was read.)

The question is first upon the report of the majority. The vote will be taken by States.

The roll-call resulted as follows:

The PRESIDENT. The report of the majority is adopted. Is it desired to have the roll-call upon the minority report?

Mr. SAENZ PEÑA. One delegate having abstained from voting, I ask that the minority report be voted

on.

Mr. ROMERO. I think it is wholly irregular to have the minority report voted on after that of the majority has been adopted. But to meet the difficulty pointed out by the honorable delegate from the Argentine Republic, it seems to me that an opportunity should be given to the honorable delegate from Paraguay to express his views as to the report of the minority. It is clear that he ought not to be denied the chance to express his opinion; but we who have voted for the majority report would be placed in an embarrassing position; for if we vote against the minority report, we shall appear to be acting inconsistently, that report being practically identical with a part of the majority report, though it does not cover as much ground; while, on the other hand, if we vote for the minority report we shall seem to be contradicting our vote for the report of the majority.

Mr. SAENZ PEÑA. The reason which I mentioned to the Conference, based upon the fact that the delegate from Paraguay had abstained from voting, was a merely incidental reason, and not the only one. I ask that the minority report be voted on because the majority report does not define the attitude of the Conference towards a Zollverein. What has been adopted is simply the recommending part of the report of a committee which, having been appointed to consider the subject of a Customs Union, recommends

the negotiation of reciprocity treaties, but says absolutely nothing as to a Customs Union, the one subject which was referred to it.

I think, therefore, that the Conference ought to express its opinion as to a Customs Union, and, as that is not covered by the majority report, the minority report must be voted on in order that the Conference may have an opportunity to express its opinion upon the fundamental point involved. For this reason I insist that the minority report be voted on.

The PRESIDENT. While there is some embarrassment about it, it is sometimes conceded in bodies of this characture, for the reason that voting "no" upon the majority proposition does not touch the minority proposition. Therefore, when they have desired to have their names recorded in the journal as supporting that report, it has been allowed to have the roll called, and in such a case there need be no negative vote because it is merely to record the vote on the minority report. The Chair would suggest to the honorable gentlemen that they would attain their object by simply asking that their names be recorded on the journal as voting for the minority report. That would be the more direct way of stating it. The gentlemen who are supporting the minority report want their support recorded; merely voting “no” on the majority report does not give them the advantage of that. Non constat, the vote "no" means a vote in the negative; they want the positive affirmation for the negative vote. That can be readily obtained if they will pass their names up as in favor

of it.

Mr. DECOUD. Accepting with thanks the President's

suggestion, I beg that I may be reported as voting in favor of the minority report.

Mr. ARAGON. Mr. President, I think there is a very peculiar question before us now. For instance, the minority report states that we do not consider practicable a Customs Union. We all admit that, and the fact that we agree to that, is indicated by the affirmative vote advising the exchange of reciprocity treaties because we can not come to a Customs Union. Now, for instance, I would have no objection to approving the report of the minority of the committee for the reason that I understand that the Customs Union can not be made now. I agree to that entirely; but the difference between the reports of the minority and the majority is this: the former do not advise the celebration of reciprocity treaties, for the reason that they consider it out of the province of this Conference, while I do not consider it so. I agree to the main point that a Customs Union is impracticable at present, but do not find inadvisable the celebration of reciprocity treaties. The reason why I have no objection is that I consider this is not the case. I do not find that both opinions conflict. For, in this case, one would say "white" and the other would say 'black." There would be an apparent conflict, but these reports are based on different grounds. They both consider a Customs Union as impracticable. We all agree to that; even the majority report states that plainly. I also agree that it is impracticable at present to organize a Customs Union. Under these circumstances I want my vote to be recorded in this peculiar way: That though I consider a Customs Union as impracticable at present, agreeing in that