and, in such case, the nations seeking the best terms. for the payment of these dues by their respective ships will proceed, motu propio, to secure this advantage, and at last they will come to adopt that system which is the most advantageous.

Mr. ARAGON. As regards the question which is pending upon the subject of the phrase "registered tonnage," used in the report, it seems to me that it is perfectly correct.

Registered tonnage is simply that shown by the ship's register. That there are various methods of measuring the tonnage of vessels, and that one method is different from another method in nothing affects the object sought. Upon the ship's register her number of tons burden is entered, and this is the tonnage that should be taken into consideration, and for this reason I think that the phrase is properly used.

As regards the system of measuring the carrying capacity of vessels I would simply say that in the Maritime International Conference, which has just met in this city, this point was discussed, without coming to any agreement because the delegate from each nation said that in his country the registry was estimated upon the number of meters of the carrying capacity of the vessel in order that the cargo should not exceed the capacity, as the tendency of captains was to load more than the vessels were able to carry.

But it is unnecessary to enter into a discussion of the point. I must ask to be allowed to respectfully make an observation to the committee relative to a phrase used by it in the exceptions embraced in its report.

The exception reads: transports, etc."

"The vessels of war and

It appears to me that the word transport is not sufficiently clear, because, as I believe, the committee only excepts transports of war, and in our language the word transport has not the same significance as in English. In our language the word trasportes (transports), if I am not mistaken, has an extensive signification, meaning transportation of provisions, merchandise, and other things. Therefore I would ask of the committee, if I am not in error, to have the goodness to add another word defining the full significance of the word used.

I take the liberty of reading the definition of the word from the dictionary, because it is necessary that I show whence I got the idea that this expression needed some explanation. The Spanish dictionary

says:

Transport: a ship, galley, or vehicle of any kind, whatever, specially destined to the carrying from one place to another provisions, troops, and other things.

Therefore, all that serves to transport is a transport, and I do not suppose that this was the idea of the committee. It seems unnecessary to read the English definition of the word transport.

Mr. VARAS. I hasten to comply with the request of the honorable delegate from Costa Rica, giving him the explanation or rather illustration desired on this point, and I will furthermore forestall it by saying that I am in perfect accord with the gentleman with regard to the meaning of the word "transport," as employed by the committee, and not with the general acceptation of the word as defined in the dictionary;

which includes all vessels, whether war-ships or others, used for the transportation of merchandise, passengers, or soldiers. This article says: "War-ships and transports." The word, therefore, refers directly to the principal term of the resolution, that is, warships. For this reason, when the words "war-ships and transports" are used together the latter should be understood, technically, as referring to naval ships. Notwithstanding this explanation, which seems to be convincing, if the Conference permits it, the phrase might be amended by couching it in these terms, "ships and transports of war." I think the object can be attained in this manner. If the honorable delegate deems it best, and the Conference permits, I would suggest this amendment in the body of the report.

Mr. QUINTANA. Mr. President, from the slight discussion already had, it appears that the report as a whole is not affected substantially by the remarks, and the Argentine delegation will vote for it with much pleasure. The remarks which have been made concern details upon particular points, and in this case it would seem to be better to treat them separately and apart in order to attain to the most accurate conclusions. When we come to that, the Argentine delegation also will offer some amendments.

Proceeding as we have done, up to the present, is not in compliance with the rules, and, therefore, I propose that we vote upon the report in general and then proceed to the discussion of each of the resolutions contained therein.

Mr. ROMERO. I am entirely in accord with the motion of the honorable delegate from the Argentine

Republic, and the Mexican delegation will also give its affirmative vote to the report as a whole; but before this subject is put to the vote, and before passing to a discussion upon the details, I desire to state, not for the purpose of insisting upon the resolution offered, because it does not seem to meet with approval, and therefore I think it unnecessary to insist upon it, but in order to make an explanation which, in my opinion, is indispensable.

In the register of a vessel there is entered the gross and net tonnage and, as the honorable Delegates will know, on every vessel there is a great effort to show the gross tonnage, because, the larger the tonnage the greater are the accommodations offered; as, for example, the City of New York is 6,500 tons burden (I mean gross tonnage); but when net tonnage is treated of, which is that upon which the dues are estimated, each nation is interested in securing for its shipping the lowest possible dues, and they lower, in consequence, the tonnage.

On the other hand, as regards the gross tonnage there are no different measurements; there is one system in use—a uniform method; but with regard to net tonnage it is very different-there are various ways of estimating it and, as I have said, a system is used by various nations which tends to diminish the dues by reducing the tonnage as much as possible.

In order that the estimated dues should rest upon some solid basis and not upon the scale each Government chooses to fix, I propose, not to change the basis, but that instead of collecting proportional dues upon gross tonnage, that is to say, instead of ten cents, five cents should be assessed per gross ton; this rate

is less, but it is collected upon a surer and more regular basis.

As the committee does not accept this, I shall not insist further upon the amendment, which in a certain sense might be considered as secondary, although I am altogether certain that it is preferable to fix the rate upon the gross tonnage.

I must make a few other remarks, with regard to the articles in detail, but I will do so when these come up for discussion.

I would ask the Conference to permit me to make another explanation which will better elucidate my idea. In collecting the import duties upon merchandise the system adopted is that of charging according to the net tonnage; but experience has demonstrated the advisability of collecting the dues upon the gross tonnage, because it is not easy to weigh, in each case, the vessel in which the merchandise is contained, and, although there may be difficulties in the way of collecting upon the gross tonnage, because some tariffs impose duties at fixed rates, it has been, nevertheless, demonstrated that this is the best sys

tem.

What I proposed was a similar provision; that instead of collecting dues upon the net tonnage capacity of the vessel, or upon the net weight, it would be preferable to collect upon the gross tonnage of ships, which also appears upon the registers.

SESSION OF MARCH 19, 1890.

The PRESIDENT. The continuation of the debate upon the report of the Committee on Port Dues is in order.