many, 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 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 two |