of our harbors. I beg to say that in no place the largest steamer pays over $30 for pilotage, and that covers the service of the pilot; while in many places it is $5 or $10.

In some of your ports they pay as much as $100 for pilotage alone. I therefore continue in the belief that our tonnage dues, such as are collected now, are considerably less than they would be if 10 cents a registered ton were charged, as it is now proposed. This I observe by way of recommendation, not in opposition to the report of the committee which to me seems substantially just; and that so far as the delegation from Colombia is concerned I think that we should vote in favor of it. Mr. Bolet Peraza has used the argument that the delegate from Brazil considered the tariff too low-the tariff proposed by the committee and that the delegate from Colombia considered it too high. He says that it is a contradiction. Not at all. They are looking at it from a different stand-point. There is no contradiction there at all. I have not the statistical data about the tonnage dues in Colombia, but I have consulted one of my colleagues who has lived there for some time, and he informs me that the figures are so small that they form a very small amount; that they do not form separate articles in our budget; that they are put in among the miscellaneous articles, whereas if we charge 10 cents for every ton coming into our ports, as proposed in the report of the committee, once a year, it would be a great deal more than the tax now paid.

Mr. COOLIDGE. The object of the report on port dues is to take off some of the burdens which are injurious to commerce in the way of taxes levied on

vessels which enter the various ports of the Amer

icas.

This can only be done by the different Governments assuming as a loss, and charging to their own revenues, the port dues that are taken off of the commerce seeking their ports.

The main principle of the report is that all commerce shall be taxed alike in all the Americas, and that all the Governments shall be willing to bear their share of the loss of port dues, expecting to gain in the long run by the increase of commerce.

Some of the Governments, have let out the lighthouse system to contractors who have a right to collect certain light-house dues to remunerate themselves for the expense of keeping the lights in repair and taking charge of them.

Some of the Governments, instead of letting out the maintenance of the light-houses to contractors, do. the work themselves, maintain the light-houses, and collect the dues from the commerce of the port.

There is no difference to commerce whether the Government does the work itself or hires somebody to do it. If they reduce their port dues they both get the same money for the services, and both make a present loss for the prospect of increasing their commerce.

The Governments can not break the contracts. We do not ask them to do so.

They propose that as long as these contracts last they, the Governments, should continue to impose the light-house dues named in the contracts on the commerce of the ports.

But that would not accomplish the purpose sought by this report of the committee, because com

merce would have to pay higher port dues in the harbors of Argentine and Colombia than in the other countries, viz, the tonnage dues recommended by the committee and the light-house dues payable under the contracts. Commerce in those States would suffer, and the Argentine Republic and Colombia would be better off than the other nations of the Americas, because they would not have to pay anything for maintaining their light-houses, as the contractors would bear the expense.

Now, I know that the Argentine and Colombia wish to bear all their burdens, and do not desire in any way to be favored more than their neighbors. They are here in the spirit of perfect fairness, desiring to treat all other nations with the same justice and liberality with which they desire to be treated themselves.

To place all nations on an equal footing they should of course keep their contracts, but they should remove the burden from public commerce by assuming the light-house dues which the contractors have a right to collect.

This must be the cost to the Argentine and Colombia of the maintenance of the system of lighthouses which the other nations pay directly. Το make myself clear:

I suppose that two towns own two bridges, and they have been in the habit of charging tolls for the public to pass over those bridges.

Later on they agree that the public shall pass free or at a much reduced rate.

One town takes off its toll, and keeps and repairs its bridge at its own expense.

The other town says I can not take off my toll

because I have contracts with a man to keep my bridge in repair and I allow him to collect tolls for so doing, and I must be excused until the contract is out, because I can not break my contract.

Would not the other town have a right to say we do not ask you to break your contract, but only to let the public pass free. Pay yourself the tolls which the contractor has a right to collect, and you will be in the same position as I am.

The public will pass free, and we shall have to bear the maintenance of the bridge, you by paying the tolls to the contractor, I by actually doing the repairs and maintaining the bridge.

If

you continue to allow your agent to collect tolls whilst I collect none, you will be saved the expense of maintaining the bridge, and the public will pay for it, which is just what we desire to prevent.

I therefore hope that the delegates of the Argentine Republic and Colombia will withdraw their objections to accepting the first clause of the report without addition.

I beg to add that I have been informed that the delegates from Colombia withdrew their objection; therefore my request would only apply to the delegation from the Argentine Republic.

Mr. QUINTANA. It would be very pleasant to me to oblige the delegate by withdrawing the amendment offered to article 1, which is now under consideration. Unfortunately, it is not possible for me to do so; I must insist upon it, and I will state why.

The honorable delegate, Mr. President, has received the impression that the committee was instructed to reduce the dues now paid in various ports of Ameri

can nations. I think that there is an error in this

statement.

The committee has received no such instructions. The text of the act of invitation and the resolution which created it, is confined exclusively to saying that the committee would present a project to make port dues uniform in the various ports. To make port dues uniform is one thing; to reduce them is another.

Even admitting that the committee had the power attributed to it by the honorable delegate, all the delegations would not be obliged to accept the propositions offered. If the reports have to be accepted by all the delegations as obligatory, then there is no reason for the existence of the Conference. It might have been substituted by a committee appointed upon each subject.

The duty of the committee is simply to propose measures; and when they study the subjects confided to them and arrive at such a solution as appears to them acceptable, their work must be repeated by each delegation in order to see whether these propositions are or not acceptable to each one of the countries represented in the Conference.

Placing the question upon this ground it is easy to be convinced that the position taken by the Argentine delegation is perfectly just. The Argentine delegation did not desire, for a moment, to attribute to the committee, or to a delegate, or to any one, the intention to place a violent and arbitrary restriction upon the contracts held by the nation which the delegation represents upon light-houses, and it was exactly for this reason that in the preceding session I had the