The honorable delegate from Brazil has the floor. Mr. MENDONCA Spoke in Portuguese, and interpreted his remarks as follows:

I avail myself, Mr. President, of the privilege of translating my remarks in regard to this matter. With all due deference to my friend, Mr. Studebaker, who signed the report, I would propose some changes in the conclusions. From the first conclusion to the last, I see that the report is liable to improvement. In the first conclusion, as the report has referred more than once to dues in the ports of departure and entry, and the committee has only to consider the dues at the port of arrival of the vessel and not the dues at the ports of departure, in order that the conclusion may be improved, I would insert a few words saying, "consular fees excepted." Dues are paid at the port of departure, even after a captain enters a port and unloads, and when he comes back to his country and has anything to do with the consuls he is already in the same position as he was before. So I would separate the two kinds of dues; the ones at the port of departure and the others at the port of entry. They were evidently mixed in the report.

As I said before, the report speaks of two, our own consular dues at the ports of departure, and not ports of entry, and I do not think the first resolution ought to be kept as it is. The two kinds of taxes should be separated, the taxes at the port of departure and the taxes at the port of entry. Moreover, when we were in the committee the other side of the question was considered. In order that this Conference may properly consider it, and not mix one with the other, I would insert just the words "except consular

fees," as the report has been speaking of both kinds of dues.

In regard to the second clause, my remarks were to two different points; first in regard to the serious difficulty that will always arise if you do not mark whether it is the gross or net tonnage to be considered.

The recommendation of the committee that we say registered ton does not advance very much our affairs, because the tonnage of the vessel can be registered with gross and net tonnage, can be registered only the gross, or registered only the net tonnage ; so the difficulty would be just the same.

I do not want to take up the time of the Conference and go over the matter and make a long discussion about the way tonnage is considered, but refer to the book of Professor Wilson which tells us what tonnage is, and how many kinds of tonnage we have, and how they are classified, and how they are registered in the different commercial nations. What is necessary is just to select one single tonnage, and I propose the gross tonnage, and I will tell you why. The net tonnage is not a just one and would do great injustice to the sailing vessels. I want to tell my American friends that we have not a very large national steam-ship marine, and we depend upon our sailing vessels in both North and South America. So I do not want to see our little merchant marine suffering from discrimination in favor of English steamers which cover all the waters of the world. And I would recommend this point of view, that the sailing vessel's gross tonnage is almost equal to the steamer's net tonnage because of the additional tonnage for machinery, coal, etc.

The gross tonnage of a sailing vessel is only a difference of 5 per cent. The same net tonnage in the steamers, proportionately, is different. Thirtyfive per cent. is the difference between gross and net tonnage. So in order that the sailing vessel will not suffer any injustice in the port dues I would recommend that the gross tonnage be taken as the proper one to collect upon. Moreover, what is paid in the ports is not the net tonnage, but the space that the vessel occupies inside of the ports on the place of the anchorage, and that is the displacement of the vessel. The displacement is much nearer to the gross tonnage of the vessel than to the net tonnage. It is so near that in some cases it is almost the same. So I would recommend, for just reasons, that the gross tonnage would be the tonnage we would accept in this report. Moreover, the second conclusion does away with the payment of the tonnage after it is made once a year; that is, no charge can be added after the report is made. That is not just. The sailing vessels will lose even then.

A sailing vessel can make two or three trips a year to a port, but a steamer will make more. Still the steamer, no matter how many trips it makes, pays the tonnage but once. It is a great injustice to the sailing vessels which do not transport voluminous cargoes. I do not see why we should allow a vessel to pay only once a year the duty on tonnage instead of every time she comes to a port. What is the foundation of this duty? The foundation of this duty is one given by the International Maritime Law to every country; that is, such as our life-saving stations, light-houses, hospitals, and all the other con

veniences for the commerce and navigation of the world. The International Maritime Law allows a collection of some duty to defray part of such expenses. Well, we will be just acting out a fiction without collecting any duty at all if we make the reduction proposed by the committee.

I would rather have the committee recommend to do away entirely with the collection of any port dues than to recommend in a way so unjust as it has done, making discriminations against the sailing vessel, and making discriminations against the very right of receiving such dues for sustaining the things referred to. I have the same foundation when I urge the suppression of conclusion three. There is no reason why, after a vessel pays a tonnage in the first port, she shall not pay in the others, because the large number of ports obliges or compels the country to have larger expenses in sustaining such service— light-houses, pilots, docks, and employés, and a larger number of life-saving stations. If the number of ports is larger, the larger the expenses, and the greater the necessity to secure for each port the same amount of tonnage dues. My idea can be expressed in these few words: I want each vessel entering each port to pay a duty on gross tonnage every time it enters the port.

In regard to the last conclusion I would add to the list of vessels not to be charged any tonnage yachts and pleasure boats, together with the men-ofwar, and transports of war mentioned in the report. That is perfectly right, and I would also take out the small boats of less than 25 tons, leaving only the merchant to pay for such service. I have not the

least fear of the difficulty of measuring the tonnage, as mentioned by the chairman of this committee yesterday, because that is a very simple problem. The law is well known in regard to the water line and cargo line, etc. It is a simple matter to arrive at. An employé of the custom-house will, in five minutes, figure it out. We have been doing that for some eight or nine years in Brazil, and we do not pretend to be very smart. In regard to the translation made from number three of the fourth clause, I do not think the English conveys perfectly the idea of our friends as they have expressed it in Spanish. A case could arise that a vessel, from the very fact of suffering stress of weather outside the bar of the port to which it was destined, might avoid the payment of the tonnage.

Mr. CRUZ I have asked the floor to remark that, according to my understanding, upon motion of the honorable Mr. Quintana, delegate from the Argentine, it has been agreed to first discuss the plan as a whole, and afterwards enter upon the debate on the articles, and undoubtedly this should be done because as the resolutions framed by the committee comprehend several points, if observations are made generally on one of these points, it is impossible to get a full idea of the several points touched upon.

Pursuant to the motion that has been made, and to the rules, I now move that the question be put whether the plan shall be adopted as a whole, in order that we may take up the discussion of the articles, and consider in order the amendments proposed by each of the honorable delegates, be it by the honorable

563A-28