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 myself 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 Germany, at the rivers Jade, Weser, Elbe, and Eider. On that coast we have four rivers or estuaries, where there are a number of vessels, steamers and sailing vessels for there is an enormous traffic-which would be daily requiring pilots. Then there would be the same sounds or the same sound signals over this whole region. In the one case, when the pilot gives the signal, it will signify, I am here and trying to reach you, I will get to you as soon as I can, because I want to put my pilot on board: In the other case, it will not only ask the pilot to come near you, but it will be a warning to other ships to get as far away as possible from you, since you are a source of danger. Therefore, the signal would mean in the two cases exactly opposite things. There is another reason which makes it doubtful whether we can adopt this rule. If you will be kind enough to look at page 2 of this report, in the fourth paragraph from the bottom, it says:

"One, two, or three sound blasts on a fog-horn are already in use by sailing vessels under way. It is not laid down what the length of these blasts should be, but by the construction of the fog-horns used in the past they are necessarily blasts of equal duration. We submit that they should be so regulated and termed short blasts."

As I understand this-and I beg to be corrected if I am wrong-the Committee on Sound-Signals state distinctly that these sound-signals are now in use on sailing vessels; that they make blasts of equal duration, and that they are short blasts. Now, if you introduce a single long blast all the instruments, or by far the greater part of the soundsignal instruments, in use at present must become obsolete, and must be replaced by modern ones, able to give a short and long blast, exactly as they like, because otherwise this recommendation could not be carried out.

Now the question with me is whether, if this signal deals with one class of ships, say for instance pilot vessels, it would be possible to introduce a signal which is already in use in the Thames for an entirely different purpose; that is a signal of four short blasts. The Committee on Sound-Signals have so strongly recommended the use of signals consisting of only short or long blasts that I, with all the respect which is due to the report presented by such an eminent committee, find it rather difficult to reconcile the two positions taken in the report. In one place it is recommended to make blasts of equal duration, and in another place a short and a long blast are introduced. I believe that there is no other satisfactory means of multiplying these fog-signals than by the adoption of signals composed of long and short notes; but I believe that before we begin with them, we ought to adopt all the possible combinations which may be made by using blasts of equal duration.

Captain MALMBERG (Sweden). Mr. President, I only want to ask whether or not it is a happy thought to provide the same signal for a pilot-boat and a ship wanting a pilot; a ship may be in want of a pilot

S. Ex. 53-50

and hear the signal, and thinking that she will find a pilot-boat, she will suddenly find herself alongside of another vessel of which she ought to keep out of the way.

Admiral NARES (Great Britain). Mr. President, I have pointed out the difficulties in which the Sound-Signal Committee were placed, which required us to give the same signals to two vessels, the pilot-vessel and the vessel wanting a pilot. I think that when we meet together in the two committees we can get over the difficulty with regard to that which is pointed out by the gallant delegate from Germany. If you will look at the top of page 2, the first principle adopted by the Sound-Signal Committee informs you that efficient mechanical fog-horns capable of producing sounds of varying duration are increasing in numbers on both sailing and fishing vessels. As I told you just now, we were so very hard up for characters—and you will see how hard up we were presently, when we come to discuss the signals which we have chosen for towing vessels-that we were compelled to provide this signal as given in the report. The signal provided for towing vessels is a complicated one, and we were at our wits' end so long as we could only deal with single sounds. We have endeavored to point out very clearly to the Conference the trouble we were in, and still we had to give character to the signals. To complete the character, as I said before, we could only adopt one signal for a pilot-vessel and for a vessel in want of a pilot.

I may say that the gentleman sent by the Canadian authorities to give us information and the gentleman who came to give evidence from the pilots, both agreed that mechanical fog-horns capable of producing sounds of varying duration, are increasing in numbers on board both sailing and fishing vessels. On that statement you may be sure that in a very few years the old single fog-horns, which only give a single blast, will be gone, and you will have capable and efficient fog-horns on board of the ships; and if you agree to our signal of different sounds, long and short, you may depend upon it, that before your rules are promulgated these fog-horns will be used entirely. Now, arguing upon that statement, we have ventured to propose this signal. There are two signals in which we have given you different blasts, and that is the pilot signal and a steam-vessel which is stopped, which will come up presently under Article 12. If the Conference will agree that the pilots must have a signal to be made when they can not see another vessel, and if the Conference will agree that a steamer, when she can not see a pilot vessel, must have a signal, I have no doubt that we shall be able to lay two good and unmistakable characters before the Conference.

Mr. GOODRICH (United States). Mr. President, I have no desire to shut off discussion on an important principle like this, but I venture to call the attention of the President and members of the Conference to the fact that we are not discussing the resolution of the learned delegate from Great Britain, which was simply a question of reference, but we are consuming time which is going to be quite valuable, in view of the wishes of the delegates to finish the Conference, which time will have to be used again when we come to discuss the reports of the committees as they shall be presented. So I venture to suggest that we had better take a vote on the proposition to refer this to the committee, and unless some delegate desires to speak upon that I suggest that it had better be referred.

Mr. HALL (Great Britain). Mr. President, I do not at all regret the discussion which has taken place, because of its very valuable bearing upon the principles which have been dealt with in this report. In accordance with what has been stated by the delegate from the United States I would point out that the question before the Conference is a very simple one. We have agreed that signals for pilots are not to come under the rules of the road at sea. If so, why should sound-signals for pilots come into the rules? We shall simply stultify ourselves and be reversing the action which we have previously taken if we put into the rules anything about sound-signals for pilots. My sole object is to refer the question of signals for pilots to the Committee on General Division No. 8.

Captain MENSING (Germany). Mr. President, I think that this discussion should not be passed over in the Conference, because there is one point, upon which I have already touched, which, it seems to me, would make it most desirable that we should come to some sort of an understanding before we introduce these fog-horns, making long blasts and short blasts. In the present rules, as we have passed them, it is required that they should only make one sound, and it is called an effi. cient sound-signal. Now, if we introduce here a signal which requires the instrument to be able to make short blasts and long blasts, then the other article must be altered, according to my opinion. I wish to state that on principle I have nothing to say against the adoption of such a rule as has been proposed, if there be a distinct signal for the pilot and another one for the vessel wanting a pilot.

The PRESIDENT. The question now is upon the reference to Committee No. 2 upon General Division No. 8. The delegate for Great Britain moves that the sound-signals for pilot vessels be relegated to Committee No. 2 upon General Division No. 8, with a request to that committee to confer with the Sound-Signal Committee in choosing such signals. Is the Conference ready for the question?

Mr. HALL (Great Britain). Mr. President, may I point out, that it may be clearly understood, that my motion is not merely to refer it. The word I used was relegated, because we have decided that pilot signals should not form a part of the rules of the road at sea, as it was a matter for Committee No. 2 to deal with. If we use the word refer it will appear as if we ask them to report to us, and we shall have to deal with that report. I want it to appear that the opinion of the Conference is that this question as to sound-signals has nothing whatever to do with the rules of