« AnteriorContinuar »
pleasure of fully understanding all the gallant delegate from France has said, but as I read the protocol, I am quite sure that he can say in five minutes enough to convince us one way or the other on any proposition that is presented. We have discussed nearly every rule in the old regulations, and I think it would put the members to a good deal of trouble to make any new proposition. I do not believe that there is any new proposition to be presented; and if there is one of great importance it will be seen by the Conference, and the reasons can be advanced in a five minutes' speech by any delegate in this Conference. I am not particular about the limit of five minutes; but I think that is enough.
Mr. HALL (Great Britain). Mr. President, I apprehend that my gallant friend, the delegate from France, is under a misapprehension. The limit of time is not to the discussion of the principle. That can be discussed fully, of course. It is only a question as to whether or not we shall allow such an amendment to be discussed. At present the vote is to be put at once and a three-fourths vote is to be given. The only matter as to which there is a limit of time is that if any member wishes to propose an ameudment to a principle then he is to state his reasons. He can do that in five minutes. Then if the Conference votes that we shall discuss it, he can discuss his principle at any length.
Captain RICHARD (France). Mr. President, I should begin by saying that the proposition which I made is not at all for my personal advantage. I am firmly convinced that I could explain all that would come to my mind to say in less than five minutes. But if one of our co). leagues has a new proposition to make, and it requires six or seven minutes to defend his proposition, I do not see how we can be so heartless as to oppose it and to stop him at perbaps the most interesting mo. ment. It is a matter of courtesy to and confidence in the speakers which they will appreciate. For that reason I repeat, that I am opposed to that part of the proposition of the honorable Mr. Goodrich which measures the time to be given to each speaker. I do not think that the Conference should adopt this five-minute limit. Moreover, I do not think that that measure will be availed of to its fullest extent.
The PRESIDENT. The delegate from France moves that the fiveminute law be stricken out.
Mr. GOODRICH (United States). Would not the gallant delegate from France accept a limit of ten minutes?
Dr. SIEVEKING (Germany). Mr. President, because I have taken part in framing this proposal which has been read here, I think you will allow me to make a few remarks. I thought that on one side it would be but fair to give an opportunity to every member of the Conference for bringing in some new question, some new proposition, even if it should differ from the result which we bave already adopted in the Conference, before the Conference had finally determined the matter. But before it was admitted, after the long time which we have had on
the second reading of the rules, to discuss the whole subject, I thought it would be necessary and proper for us to take a vote of the Conference upon the admissibility of such a new amendment.
Now, I thought then and I think now that such a vote could be taken without any previous discussion. If an amendment is laid before the Conference, I think that after the two months' discussion which we have had that we would every one of us know whether or not we thought it worth while, or necessary, or advisable to open a discussion for this amendment after hearing the argument pro and con. I think that we are now sufficiently conversant with the subject to deal with the question at once. But it has been said against this that we ought to go a little further so as to allow a member to introduce a new principle, even at this late stage of our proceedings, and support the advisability of reconsidering a question of principle by an argument of five minutes.
Now, I think there must be some time given for debate on this ques. tion of reconsideration, or else the result will be that the discussion on the question of reconsideration will lead to a discussion of the whole subject, and everybody will try to form his opinion as to whether it was worth while to reconsider a subject according to what he hears about the importance of the subject, and then the subject itself would be en. tered into. There would then be no limit at all upon the discussion, which might embrace all of the subjects we have now been discussing for the past two months. I think there should be some limit as to the time, and if any time is to be given I think five minutes on both sides quite sufficient.
Captain VAN STEYN (The Netherlands). Mr. President, when I rise it is only to ask some information from the learned delegate from the United States. It has been said before that after we received the printed report of the Committee on Collocation we should have ample time to consider it for ourselves. I should like to ask Mr. Goodrich how many hours that means? We are sitting the whole day Thursday and Friday in the Conference, and perhaps on Saturday. How many hours are left to us before we can decide whether there are any amendments ?
Mr. GOODRICH (United States). Mr. President, according to the reading of this resolution, if the report was handed in, for instance, on Thursday morning, it would give the members all day Thursday, except when they are in Conference, and Friday and Saturday night until 7 o'clock. There are really three days for them to consider the report. I do not know that there will be any business to call the Conference together on Friday or Saturday. I will call the attention of the gallant delegate from The Netherlands to the fact that we possibly shall have no session of the Conference on Friday and certainly not on Saturday, because I do not believe that there is anything to discuss. On Thursday we shall probably discuss all of the reports of the committees which will come in on that day, as we have to-day disposed of all the reports which have thus far been presented. I do not want to stand in the position here of driving the Conference unnecessarily or of imposing upon mem. bers burdens greater than they ought to bear. I am sure there are a great many of the delegates who are anxious to finish their labors of the Conference and to adjourn.
I call your attention to another fact. The Christmas holidays com. mence in about two weeks, and we have only this week and next week before these holidays commence. If we do not finish our work by that time we will probably find it wise and desirable to adjourn through the holidays, and the Conference is therefore thrown over until the next year. Of course I only offer these resolutions, as the delegates well know, for the purpose of guiding the thought of the Conference to such course as it sees fit to adopt. I do not want to stand here in the position of attempting to work improperly. I think that we ought to make haste slowly under all circumstances.
The PRESIDENT. The question is upon the amendment of the delegate from France, to strike out the five-minute clause.
Mr. HALL (Great Britain). Mr. President, I think, as there seems to be an objection to the limit of five minutes that it would be unwise to vote in favor of keeping that limit in. I think that this discussion will be of use as it has been suggested that some of us need not be unnecessarily long in our remarks in the further discussion to take place. We have all argued these questions, soine of us at very great length. And perhaps now that the Conference is in the possession of our views we shall be able to make our remarks very short, indeed, upon any further matter. Having regard to that, I think that perhaps it is undesirable to continue the limit at five minutes, especially as I myself think that if we give the limit of five minutes the speakers will be inclined to speak for five minutes; but if we do not put in any limit the probability is that they will not speak for more than one miuute.
Mr. GOODRICH (United States). Mr. President. If there is no objection I will accept the proposition of the gallant delegate from France, and strike out the words limiting the time to five minutes. So that the proposition reads:
" That a discussion and voting upon the amendment of the second class involving a material alteration of or an addition to the rules as adopted by the Conference be admitted only after the Couference by a vote of the majority, to be taken without a previous debate, has decided upon admitting such discussion and voting.”
The PRESIDENT. Does the Conference desire to vote upon the resolution at the present time?
Mr. GOODRICH (United States). Mr. President, I move that the vote upon this proposition be now taken.
The PRESIDENT. If there be no objection the vote upon the proposition will be now taken. The Conference have heard the resolution twice read.
The question was put to the Conference upon the adoption of the
resolution presented by the delegate from the United States, and it was adopted.
Mr. CARTER (Hawaii). Mr. President, I hope that this vote will not prevent its being printed.
The PRESIDENT. No, sir; it will be printed and laid on the table tomorrow.
Mr. GOODRICH (United States). Mr. President, if no other gentle. man has any other business to propose, my friend on my right suggests that chairmen of committees may want to announce the time for their meetings. We are about to adjourn until Thursday morning.
Captain SAMPSON (United States). Mr. President, I would like to have the privilege of asking Committee No.1 to meet immediately after the adjournment. I give notice to Committee No. 3 to meet to-morrow morning at 11 o'clock.
Admiral KAZNAKOFF (Russia). Mr. President, the Committee on Lights will meet tomorrow morning at 11 o'clock.
Captain SAMPSON (United States). The Committee No. 1 will meet immediately after the adjournment, and Committee No. 3 will meet to. morrow inorning at 11 o'clock.
Mr. CARTER (Hawaii). Mr. President, Committee No. 2 will be kind enough to meet immediately after the adjournment.
The Conference thereupon adjourned until Thursday morning, December 12, 1889, at 11 o'clock, a. m.
WASHINGTON, Thursday, December 12, 1889. 11 o'clock a. m. The Conference was called to order at 11 o'clock a. m., Rear-Admiral Franklin in the chair.
The PRESIDENT. The first business in order this morning is the resolution offered by the delegate from the United States December 9, 1889.
Mr. GOODRICH (United States). Mr. President, for the present I ask permission to lay that on the table. I do not know that there will be any necessity for its passage.
The PRESIDENT. The Secretary will please read the resolution referred to for the information of the Conference.
The resolution is as follows:
" That the name of the Committee on Collocation of Rules be changed to • Committee on Collocation of Rules and on the General Report of the Conference,' and that it be instructed to prepare such a general report in due season."
The PRESIDENT. The delegate from the United States proposes to lay that resolution on the table.
The question was put to the Conference upon the motion to lay the resolution on the table, and it was carried.
The PRESIDENT. The next business in order will be the reading of the titles of the reports which have been handed in.
The reports presented to the Conference are as follows:
The report of the Committee on Life-Saving Systems and Devices, the report of Committee No. 2, the report of the Committee on Collocation of Rules.
Mr. KIMBALL (United States). Mr. President, I wish to call attention to one or two errors in the report of the Committee on Life-Saving Systems and Devices. On page 3, next to the last paragraph, it reads: “The committee are of the opinion that all vessels should be supplied with the proper quantity of animal or vegetable oil.” Insert the word "sea-going” before tbe word "vessel” in the first line. On page 6, in the third resolution, second line, insert the word “sea-going” before the word "vessels." On page 39, the last paragraph should read in this way: “Several ships steaming ten or eleven knots head to wind," etc. Then in the last line erase the word " ahead” and insert the words “over the bows." I would say, Mr. President, that it is a translation in which these errors occur. It is not a good translation, and if it could