stated that in his country consular certification was not required, the result was that a more onerous condition than that existing in Chili was proposed. With the object of obviating this difficulty, the speaker suggested an addition to the plan, in which it was expressed that the report did not take into consideration other nations having or that would accept provisions more liberal than those submitted in the report itself.

I proposed, at the proper time to offer an amendment in this sense, more or less in these words:

The provisions of this report do not apply to nations now having or which in the future may adopt measures more liberal than those here recommended.

It appears to me that with this proviso there can be no objection on the part of the Colombian delegation, as there is none on that of the Mexican, to accept the first article.

Mr. HURTADO. The Colombian delegation will vote in favor of the report because its object is to establish a uniform system.

Mr. ROMERO. I had understood that the honorable delegate said that the Colombian delegation would not vote for the report.

Before taking my seat, I shall call attention to the fact that I find a great discrepancy between the English and Spanish texts of the first article. The Spanish text, I think, has been corrected by the honorable delegate from Colombia.

Mr. HURTADO. Corrected, no; modified. I offered a slight modification.

Mr. ROMERO. Very well; but there is another phrase I would wish to be corrected so that both texts

563A--29

In the Spanish text it says:

66*

shall agree. se comprenderán en un solo gravámen" (shall be included in a single charge); while the English text reads, "shall be reduced to a single charge."

As it is probable that the charges will be reduced from what they are at present, it appears to me that the proper way to put it would be, shall

be reduced," etc.

66* *

*

Mr. QUINTANA. It appears to me that the best word would be, "merged."

Mr. ROMERO. Yes, sir; I think it good. But it would be necessary to make the necessary correction in the English text.

Mr. HURTADO. Does it appear well to the honorable delegate to first vote on the article, and when it is approved to make the correction?

Mr. ROMERO. But if the article is approved in the terms in which it is expressed in Spanish, there can be no amendment; this has to be decided before the vote is taken.

Mr. HURTADO. The honorable reporting member of the committee, I think, has said that he accepts the word "merged."

Mr. ROMERO. He has not as yet expressed any opinion.

Mr. ESTEE. Do not you think it would be of infinite importance to all the nations represented in this Conference to have a higher and possibly uniform system? That would be more advisable than to lower

the system.

Mr. ROMERO. By no means; if we have a more liberal system, so much the better for all.

Mr. ESTEE. As I understand it, formerly there

were half a dozen items instead of one. Where you have one item every shipper knows exactly what to pay.

Mr. ROMERO. Very likely I did not express myself well. What I meant to say was that if a country now charges 5 cents per ton she should not be obliged to increase that duty to 10 cents, but be allowed to continue at 5 cents.

Mr. ESTEE. Now, it is true that if a ship of 5,000 tons should enter into a port in Colombia and only land 1 ton it would be cheaper.

Mr. ROMERO. That would not happen, because this is the maximum. If Colombia accepts the report the maximum would be 10 cents per ton. She could not charge over 10 cents per ton.

Mr. ESTEE. But it strikes me that if your resolution was adopted it would make it still more uncertain.

Mr. BALET PERAZA. I am going to say two words, Mr. President, which I do not wish to withhold until later, as I see that a false impression exists concerning the intention of the committee in what it has proposed in its report.

In the first place, we have seen the difference between the points of view of the honorable colleague from Brazil and the honorable colleague from Colombia; a difference which I shall explain.

My honorable colleague from Brazil says that the committee has reduced the dues, and my honorable colleague from Colombia says they have been increased; so much so that the honorable representative from Colombia asserts that his country is more liberal than the committee, while my friend from Brazil discovers that the proposed charges are so low that they

may be ruinous to the service of the ports of his country.

Regarding what has just been said by the delegate from Colombia, I must state the following: It is true that in Colombia there is charged only $1 per ton to a vessel discharging cargo; that if it discharges 5 tons, $5 is charged, and if it unloads 100, $100 is charged; but it should be stated that, according to the plan submitted by the committee, it will have to pay 10 cents per ton, and supposing it had had $100 to pay, it would pay but once a year, while under the present dues of Colombia each time a vessel reaches one of its ports it will have to pay $50 or $100, and if it goes one hundred times it will pay one hundred times $50 or $100.

Consequently it can not be said that this charge provided for by the committee is higher than that of Colombia. I could demonstrate, on the contrary, that it is infinitely lower, because the vessel would pay it but once in a whole year on entering port.

We should not, then, for a moment allow the spirit of the proposals under debate being lost sight of, for we shall be tangled up in conflicting opinions and it will be impossible to get a clear insight into matters. The charge is either excessive and should be reduced or the charge is liberal and as such should be accepted.

I fully understand the opposition of the honorable colleague from Brazil. He defends the charges which have been established in his country for port service, and he defends them because he believes them to be necessary to the maintenance of proper port service. For this reason he finds that the committee has

proposed lower charges, which, if accepted by Brazil, will endanger its port service. I fully understand this, I repeat; but that the honorable delegate from Colombia should tell us that the committee is less liberal than the Colombian regulations is something I can not assent to, for it must be one of two things; this resolution is either too liberal, as the honorable colleague from Brazil claims, or it is not sufficiently so, as the honorable colleague from Colombia asserts, for it can not be both at the same time.

I shall take the liberty at the same time to persuade the honorable colleague from Colombia that the charges proposed are neither heavier nor higher than those of his country-I shall take the liberty, also to try to persuade the honorable colleague from Brazil that the good port service of his country will not be endangered by the acceptance of these charges, for our purpose has not been to despoil the several Governments of the resources necessary to maintain a good port service, but rather, as the honorable reporting member of the committee has well expressed it, what is wanting to complete this service may be furnished by the Governments collecting it whence it should be collected, from the consumption of the rich, from luxury, from the unnecessary, from the superfluous, whereas, at present, as that charge exists, it falls upon all the cargo, upon the people, upon wool, upon rags for the manufacture of paper, as well as upon jewels, diamonds, and on everything superfluous on which the rich spend their

fortunes.