Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Mr. KIMBALL (United States). It is now nearly ready to hand to the printer.

Mr. GOODRICH (United States). Mr. President, if the chairman of that committee desires to have this matter laid over, of course it should be done at once.

Mr. KIMBALL (United States). I think my colleagues on the committee would like to have it laid over.

Mr. GOODRICH (United States). I have no objection to that.

The PRESIDENT. Does the delegate for the United States desire to have the consideration of this matter withheld until the report of that committee?

Mr. GOODRICH (United States). Mr. President, the only possible reason that would be adverse to such a concession is that the Collocation Committee wants to lay the result of their work before the Conference, and any unpassed or unconsidered rule delays that work just so much. Of course, if the committee ask it we will have it lie over.

Mr. KIMBALL (United States). I will say that the committee approves of it with the exception of the last sentence. The committee does not approve of the principle contained in the last sentence, and it states its reasons.

The PRESIDENT. If there is no objection, the consideration of this section will be laid over for future consideration.

Mr. HALL (Great Britain). Mr. President, I think there is great objection; because, as has been pointed out by the learned delegate of the United States, it prevents the Collocation Committee from going on and completing their rules and laying them before the Conference. I am very glad to hear from the honorable delegate of the United States that the principle of this amendment is to be reported on favorably by the committee of which he forms so distinguished a member; that is, the amendment with the exception of the last four lines. I take it that-and I only speak from what I hear-there may be objection to the last four lines of this amendment. Of course my colleagues and I will support this amendment in its entirety, because it is what the law is in England at the present time, and we should be very glad to see it made an international law if possible; but at the same time, I think we might possibly accept the amendment with the exception of the last four lines, if the learned delegate for the United States thinks that would be desirable. Of course, this is a matter entirely for him to consider. But if we could practically test the principle, then I think we ought to do so without much loss of time, so that we shall be in a position to print the rules as amended.

Mr. GOODRICH (United States). Mr. President, I have taken this amendment from the statute of the 36th and 37th Victoria, and it is, or is intended to be, in the exact words of that statute, leaving out the penal clause which subjects the master who disobeys these laws to a penalty or punishment for a misdemeanor, that, of course, being a

matter which must be dealt with by the several powers which adopt the report of this Conference. But it seems to me that in the absence of that provision it would be folly to leave out the punishment which is implied and which results from the last few lines of this amendment. Therein lies the power of compelling obedience to the first part of it. The first part of the amendment simply says that the master shall stop, and the second contains the only punishment which the rules can inflict, namely, that if he fails to obey the rule, and no reasonable cause for such failure is shown, the collision shall, in the absence of proof to the contrary, be deemed to have been caused by his own wrongful acts. I do not think it is desirable to discuss this until we hear from the committee.

Captain RICHARD (France). Mr. President. I have two objections to the proposition of the honorable Mr. Goodrich. The first is, it is not wise to introduce such a provision into the rules themselves, of which it should not form a part. The second, the merits of which I will discuss when the proper time arrives, will be to ask the Conference to leave out the last four lines of the amendment as being not a proper subject for an international agreement. I will briefly examine, from this double stand-point, the wisdom of sending this amendment back when the report of the Committee on Division 5 shall come up for discussion, and I will state that the necessity of so sending it back is selfevident, for the following reason:

In France the rules of the road are simply directions for the guidance of navigators, and outside of cases of collision, of running aground, or of damage, in order to reach the captains who have infringed or neg lected to observe these rules, our legislation is obliged to resort to Article 471 of our penal code, which punishes with a fine of from 1 to 5 francs those who offend against the rules legally promulgated by the proper authority. Is that desirable or sufficient? Instead of an administrative regulation, a law should be demanded to prevent a repetition of such an offense, and in order to obtain such a law it is necessary that the amendment should not be introduced into the rules of the road, but set forth in a special report. I therefore think that we should be very careful not to insert this proposition into directions which are no doubt very important, but the non-observance of which is followed by punishment only in exceptional cases.

I would also ask you to omit the last phrase of the proposition which, in our mind, is irreconcilable with strict justice.

It is evident that two distinct wrongs are confounded: collision, and the crime of inhumanity which is committed by speeding away after the collision and abandoning the vessel which requires assistance; because a captain is guilty of inhumanity he should not therefore be rendered responsible for the collision.

You should, therefore, leave to the committee, which has maturely considered this question, the care of presenting their proposition, which,

having been formulated by the committee unanimously, may very prob ably be accepted by everybody.

Captain MENSING (Germany). Mr. President, we have in Germany, as in Great Britain, a law by which those persons who leave a ship in distress without rendering proper assistance can be punished. In this law the last sentence of this amendment is not contained, although the rest of the law is virtually the same as that which is in force in Great Britain. That points to the fact that the German Government thinks that the provision contained in the last sentence of the amendment is not acceptable. I believe, on that ground, that the German Government would not be in a position to accept the amendment as it is proposed here. One difficulty has been mentioned by the gallant delegate from France, that there is a penalty inflicted by this law, in the rules of the road at sea. I believe that it would be the best for everybody concerned if, as the gallant delegate from France has suggested, this law were not to be incorporated in the rules of the road; but it might be adopted as a principle to be called to the attention of the different powers by the report which we are expecting from the Life-Saving Committee.

Mr. GOODRICH (United States). Mr. President, I formally move that this matter be laid over until the coming in of the report of the Committee on Life-Saving Systems and Devices, in order that we may have all the material before us necessary to a proper understanding of the arguments in favor of and against the proposition. I have thus far presented no argument in favor of it, which, of course, I should like to do in due season. I think, however, it will not be best to take up the time of the Conference to-day, as the suggestion has been made that it should be postponed until we hear further from the Committee on LifeSaving Systems and Devices.

The PRESIDENT. It is moved that this subject be laid over until the report of the Committee on Life-Saving Systems and Devices is received. The question was put to the Conference upon the postponement of the new section proposed by the delegate from the United States, and the further consideration of the subject was postponed.

The PRESIDENT. The next business in order will be the additional report of the Committee on Sound-Signals. The Secretary will please read the report of this committee by sections. The Secretary will now read the first section of the report.

The first section of the report of the Committee on Sound Signals is as follows:

"WASHINGTON, November 21, 1889.

"To Rear-Admiral S. R. FRANKLIN, U. S. Navy,

"President of the International Marine Conference, etc.

"SIR: Agreeably with the reference of the Conference on November 8, for the Committee on Sound-Signals to consider and report the specific cases in which new fog signals should be adopted and to report specific signals for such cases, we beg to submit that in the opinion of the committee it is desirable to adopt the sound-signals mentioned in the following report for compulsory or permissive use as advised."

Mr. HALL (Great Britain). Mr. President, I think we might dispense with the reading of the preliminary part of the report, because I think that all of us have read this very carefully before, several times. I would suggest, if it be agreeable to the Conference, that it be taken up at the middle of page 4, where it says, "In accordance with our recommendations as above, we suggest for the consideration of the Conference the following readings of the articles in the regulations." I would suggest to the Conference whether it would not be a saving of time to begin at that paragraph.

The PRESIDENT. If there be no objection, the course suggested by the delegate from Great Britain will be pursued. The Secretary will please read the first paragraph, which is the addition to Article 9.

Addition to Article 9 is as follows:

"A pilot-vessel wishing to attract attention may sound on her foghorn, whistle, or siren, three blasts, viz, short, short, long, with intervals of about one second between them."

Mr. HALL (Great Britain). Mr. President, as the Conference has now determined to relegate the question of pilot signals to the International Code Signal Committee, and not to embody them in the rules for preventing collisions at sea, I move that this addition to Article 9 be not inserted in the rules for preventing collisions at sea. This is not because we think for one moment that the committee which has made this valuable report has not chosen the best signal which could be adopted for the purpose, but it is solely because of the decision of the Conference that the question of signals for pilots is not a proper matter to be inserted in the rules for preventing collisions at sea. That there should be such a signal as this, and that it will find its way into the international code-signal book, I have no doubt whatever; but at the present time I would move, having regard to the previous decision of the Conference, that this article be not added to the rules for preventing collisions at sea, the Conference having determined not to include pilot signals in the rules.

Admiral NARES (Great Britain). Mr. President, before that is fully discussed I should like to say on the part of the Sound-Signal Committee that we first came to the conclusion that it was very desirable that a pilot should have a signal, so that he could make himself known in a fog when another vessel was not in sight. We also thought that a vessel wanting a pilot should be able to sound a signal if a pilot vessel was not in sight. The reason why we put a communication signal of this kind into our report is because the reference was to include all signals, which we would advise the Conference to allow on these occasions. Of course, whether or not such a signal is to come under the rules of the road is for the Conference to determine. Before that is decided upon, I would allude to the character which we have chosen for this signal, that is quite apart from the question as to whether this signal should be included in the rules of the road for preventing collisions

at sea. If the Conference decide that there should be a signal for pilotboats and a signal for vessels wanting a pilot, then we have done our duty.

It has come to my knowledge that the Signal Committee is dealing not only with the light signals, but with sound-signals; and that this committee has also considered this question, so that, in fact, two committees which you have appointed are rather mixing with each other. Before their report is handed in I would suggest that the two committees might be amalgamated for the one purpose of choosing the best character for the several signals which they are about to propose to the conference. It so happens that the Sound Signal Committee have chosen the most simple signals of the characters that were left to their choice, and the other committee are also looking about for the most simple signal to indicate to another ship: You are standing into danger. We have both chosen the same signal, and I am quite certain we will not delay the Conference half an hour, could the two committees get together. If you will allow that plan, I am sure the Sound Signal Committee will be most happy to put themselves under the chairman of the other Signal Committee and talk the matter over. I will, therefore, ask you to allow the Sound-Signal Committee to reconsider this character for the signals.

There is one more subject to which I desire to call attention. We were so hard up for simple sound-signals, which is a very important matter, that we came to the conclusion that not only the pilot-boats, but the ship wanting the pilot, should make the same signal. When we talk this matter over with our other friends, we can hit upon some signal, perhaps, which is separate, because there is no doubt that if we can do so, it is desirable. Therefore, I should like that the SoundSignal Committee might be permitted to reconsider this subject with the other committee.

Mr. HALL (Great Britain). Mr. President, perhaps I might put my self in order by moving, formally, that all signals by and to pilotvessels be relegated to Committee No. 2, and that they be requested to confer with the Sound-Signal Committee upon that matter. I have no doubt they will be glad of the assistance, and with the combined. efforts of these two committees, we ought to get a harmonious scheme of signals which would be satisfactory.

Captain MENSING (Germany). Mr. President, I can not fully agree with the gentleman who spoke before me. I believe that this should be discussed in the Conference because the proposals made in regard to pilot-vessels and vessels requiring a pilot are, according to my idea, wrong in principle. I believe it is wrong in principle to give the same signal to a pilot-vessel and to a vessel requiring a pilot. Take into consideration, for an instant, the condition of things which would be brought about by the adoption of this rule at the mouths of a number of rivers on the coast of The Netherlands and on the coast of Ger

« AnteriorContinuar »