the road at sea, but that it is a matter to be dealt with by Committee No. 2 upon General Division No. 8 of the programme.

Captain SALVESEN (Norway). Mr. President, I would like to know when the rule was passed that these pilot signals should not come into the rules of the road. It was ruled by the Conference that these pilot signals should make a part of the rules. Some days afterwards the learned delegate of Great Britain asked permission from the gallant delegate of The Netherlands to refer it to an International Code Signal Committee, but I do not think that such permission to refer it to this committee alters the fact that the Conference has decided that these pilot signals shall make a part of the rules of the road at sea.

Mr. HALL (Great Britain). Mr. President, I am speaking merely from memory, but I think it was on the last day we met that I pointed out the extreme undesirability of including pilot signals in the rules of the road at sea, and it was agreed that the pilot signals and the rules which had been actually adopted should be withdrawn. I think it was the delegate who introduced them originally who agreed that this should be done, and it was done without any objection. I pointed out at that time the extreme undesirability of having pilot signals in the rules of the road at sea. If we include them in the rules of the road we might just as well have the whole international code signals incorporated into them.

Mr. GOODRICH (United States). Mr President, I have it marked on my memorandum here, which may be a guidance, "Referred to the International Code Committee on General Divisions Nos. 7 and 8," which is Committee No. 2. I think that was done upon the motion of the delegate from Great Britain.

Captain HUBERT (The Netherlands). Mr. President, the sound signal for pilots was not mentioned in the amendment.

Captain MALMBERG (Sweden). Mr. President, I should like to be informed if there were ever proposed to the Conference any fog-signals to be made between pilot-vessels and vessels wanting a pilot. So far as I can remember, there has never been laid before the Conference any such proposition except what we find in this report from the Committee on Sound-Signals.

Mr. HALL (Great Britain). Mr. President, I am sorry that the protocol of the last day is not yet put into the hands of the delegates. I have a vivid recollection of what occurred, and it is confirmed by the note of the learned delegate of the United States. If there is any doubt upon the matter at all, I am perfectly willing to move a substantive resolution that it is undesirable, in the opinion of this Conference, that any signal, sound or otherwise, for or to pilots, be included in the rules of the road at sea. I think that will clear up all possible doubt. I do not think it is necessary for me to occupy the time of the Conference with regard to this proposal. I think that originally the amendment with regard to the pilot signals only crept in because the delegates who proposed them, seeing the distress signals in, thought there might be no objection to putting in pilot signals. If we put in the pilot signals where are we to stop? Why should we not put in the other signals? Why should we not put in the whole International Code of signals? I can not see what the pilot signals have to do with the rules of the road at sea any more than any other signals. Perhaps it will be desirable in order to clear the way, that I should move a substantive resolution: That this Conference is of opinion that it is undesirable to include in the rules of the road for preventing collisions at sea, signals, sound or otherwise, for or to pilot-vessels.

The PRESIDENT. The Secretary will please read the resolution of the delegate from Great Britain.

The resolution is as follows:

"Resolved, That in the opinion of this Conference it is undesirable to include in the rules for preventing collisions at sea, signals, sound or otherwise, for or to pilot vessels."

The PRESIDENT. Is the Conference ready for the question on the resolution of the delegate from Great Britain?

The question was put to the Conference upon the resolution of the delegate from Great Britain, and the resolution was adopted.

The PRESIDENT. The question now is upon the proposition of the delegate from Great Britain to relegate the subject of sound-signals to be made by or to pilot-vessels, to Committee No. 2 upon General Division No. 8 of the programme, with a request to that committee to confer with the Sound-Signal Committee with regard to such signals.

Mr. CARTER (Hawaii). Mr. President, I was under the impression that had passed the Conference.

The PRESIDENT. That resolution had not been passed when the other resolution was offered by the delegate from Great Britain. It is now before the Conference.

Mr. GOODRICH (United States). It was passed, Mr. President, with the word "reference" in it.

The PRESIDENT. The Chair read the word "relegated."

The question was thereupon put to the Conference upon the adoption of the resolution of the delegate from Great Britain, and it was adopted. The PRESIDENT. The Secretary will please read Article 10. Article 10, paragraph a, is as follows:

"(a) In fog, mist, falling snow or heavy rain storms, a drift-net vessel attached to her nets and a vessel when trawling, dredging, or fishing with any kind of drag-net, and a vessel employed in line fishing with her lines out shall at intervals of not more than two minutes make a blast with her fog-horn, followed by ringing her bell."

Admiral NARES (Great Britain). Mr. President, may I say, with regard to that signal, that the old rule in Great Britain, under Article 10, is, that such a vessel makes a blast on her fog-horn and rings her bell alternately. There has been some doubt as to whether the twominute signal is to be a fog-horn, and two minutes afterwards the bell, and two minutes after that the fog-horn, and two minutes after that the bell, or whether it is to be a one-minute interval between them. To get over that doubt, the wording has been altered so as to read: "At intervals of not more than two minutes, make a blast with her foghorn, followed by ringing her bell." So that, practically, every two minutes there would be a signal on the fog-horn and the bell.

Captain MENSING (Germany). Mr. President, on page 4, paragraph 2, the committee express as their opinion on Article 12

"We are of opinion that Article 12, prescribing what sound-signal apparatus should be carried by vessels, should be limited to vessels above 20 tons gross tonnage, smaller sailing vessels and boats being allowed to make any efficient sound-signal."

This is referred to under Article 12 on page 5 again, and will have to be discussed there. But I would like to call to the attention of the Conference the fact that if this signal should be adopted it would not be applicable at all to any vessel which is below 20 tons gross tonnage. It says, "Shall at intervals of not more than two minutes make a blast on her fog horn followed by ringing her bell." Now, as I read it, I am clearly of the opinion that under Article 12 small vessels would be allowed to make any efficient sound-signal. They might take a tea-kettle and beat upon it with a belaying-pin or anything else and make a kind of a noise. In a fishing boat then that would take the place of the foghorn and of the bell. If that be the case under Article 10 there can be only one signal given by the smaller fishing vessels, which, I presume, are more numerous than those above the size of 20 tons gross tonnage. I desire to call the attention of the Conference to this and to ask whether they think it desirable that such should be the case. A sailing vessel can not, even if she is properly equipped, according to these regulations, follow the rules laid down in this article because she has not two sound-signal apparatus, but only one.

Admiral NARES (Great Britain). Mr. President, the point which my gallant friend has just touched upon came up before the committee and they have provided for it on page 5, which will come up presently under Article 12. Of course if Article 10 is to be reworded to allude only to vessels above 20 tons, that must be done; but we do not see the reason for it. We have provided for sailing vessels and boats, which, of course, will include fishing boats of less than 20 tons. Steam-vessels of that class must always have a whistle, and there is no reason why they should not sound it. As for a sailing vessel, which is not obliged to carry a whistle, let her carry the belaying-pin and frying pan. When we come to deal with a vessel, no matter how small she is, which is anchored in a fair-way we provide that she must sound a bell and must have a bell on board to sound; and if she has no bell she has no business to anchor in a fair-way.

The PRESIDENT. The question before the Conference is upon Article 10, paragraph a.

Captain RICHARD (France). Mr. President, I desire to submit to the Conference an objection to Article 10, in which I see that the old wording has been retained which orders the blowing of a horn and the ringing of a bell at intervals of two minutes. I can not explain this provision. It was decided that steam-vessels under way shall blow their whistles at much shorter intervals (one minute instead of two) when they were under way in a fog, mist, or falling snow. This you decided, although the steam-whistles or sirens, when compared with the fog-horn and the bell, are very powerful instruments of sound. For the vessels which we are now discussing, whose bells and fog-horns can often not be heard beyond a few yards, the interval formerly adopted is retained.

It is my opinion that inasmuch as the noise of their sound-signals is carried a much shorter distance, and the speed of vessels with which it is possible for them to collide daily becomes greater-it seems to me that the necessity of repeating the sound-signals at minute intervals is even greater than in that of a vessel under way.

Mr. HALL (Great Britain). Mr. President, the gallant delegate from France has pointed out what is evidently, I think, an oversight, and that is that the committee have not adopted a principle which the Conference passed, that sailing vessels should give a blast on the foghorn at intervals of one minute and not two minutes. I have no doubt that the committee will agree that it is desirable that we should adopt that principle here and make this provision for intervals of one minute instead of two minutes.

Admiral NARES (Great Britain). Mr. President, I am sorry to say that that is an oversight. It was taken down from the old rule of the road and we have neglected to alter the word "two" into the word "one" in agreement with the decision of the Conference.

The PRESIDENT. The oversight of the committee will be corrected, and it will now read: "At intervals of not more than one minute make a blast with her fog-horn, followed by ringing her bell."

The PRESIDENT. Is the Conference ready for the question? The paragraph will be read again.

Article 10, paragraph a, is as follows:

"(a) In fog, mist, falling snow, or heavy rain-storms, a drift-net vessel attached to her nets, and a vessel when trawling, dredging, or fishing with any kind of drag-net, and a vessel employed in line-fishing with her lines out, shall at intervals of not more than one minute make a blast with her fog-horn, followed by ringing her bell."

The question was put to the Conference upon the adoption of Article 10, paragraph a, and it was adopted.

Captain MENSING (Germany). Mr. President, there is no alteration in Article 12, except as to the note.

Mr. GOODRICH (United States). Mr. President, there is another alteration to which I desire to call the attention of the gentlemen, and that is that the committee has left out, purposely, I believe, the word "bellows." If the Conference will look at the original rule you will find on the third line that the old rule has it "to be sounded by a bellows or other means," if my memory serves me right.

Admiral NARES (Great Britain). Mr. President, after the rule is read I will explain what the intention of the committee was.

The PRESIDENT. Article 12 will be read.
Article 12 is as follows:

"ART. 12. A steam-ship shall be provided with a whistle or siren, sounded by steam or other efficient substitute for steam, so placed that the sound may not be intercepted by any obstructions, and with an efficient fog-horn to be sounded by mechanical means, and also with an efficient bell. A sailing vessel of 20 tons gross tonnage and upwards shall be provided with a similar fog-horn and bell.

"NOTE. In all cases where the regulations require a bell to be used a drum will be substituted on board Turkish vessels, and a gong in Chinese waters where such articles are commonly used on board small sea-going vessels."

Admiral NARES (Great Britain). Mr. President, it is to be observed that we have left out the words "a bellows or other." We came to the conclusion that a fog-horn sounded by mechanical means included "a bellows or other." Hoping that the fog-horn would increase in efficiency we thought it would be better to take out the words "a bellows or other," and they are practically included in the words "sounded by mechanical means." The note with regard to the gong is rather important, because here we are rather asking the Conference to reconsider a decision which they came to. It was voted in the Conference that the term "gong" might be used in connection with the bell, and that vessels could ring the bell or sound the gong. Now, this is a very important case, as we are asking, in fact, the Conference to reconsider their vote. We go fully into the reasons for this, which are, shortly, that in certain waters gongs are still used very largely on board of light-ships. The sooner they disappear the better; but at the same time there they are, and it would be very perplexing if a vessel at anchor should be allowed to make the same signal that a lightship makes. Therefore we have worded it "And a gong in Chinese waters where such articles are commonly used on board small sea-going vessels." We first had it to read "in Eastern waters," but we thought that was rather vague. Still, we could easily include any waters which any delegate wishes to include in these terms; and in those waters where the gong will not interfere with the sound-signal on board of a light-ship it would be practically, perhaps, a better sound-signal for a vessel at anchor than using a bell.

I can tell the Conference that the Liverpool pilot-boats have now adopted and for many years have used the gong as their sound-signal