there was no length proposed for this blast in the committee and no length has been decided upon by the Conference.

Mr. HALL (Great Britain). Mr. President, as the Conference has adopted one second as the time of a short blast, under Article 19, we thought it was desirable to adopt the same length in this article if we could.

Captain SHACKFORD (United States). Mr. President, I submit that one second is quite insufficient for short blasts on a fog-horn. It may possibly be a sufficient blast on a steam-whistle, but it is not long enough for a blast on a fog-horn, whether a mechanical horn or a mouth-horn. Mr. HALL (Great Britain). Mr. President, then possibly the best way of getting over it is merely to insert the word "short," as the report of the committee suggests, and give no duration or no definition as to the meaning of the word "short" in the article. The great thing is to prevent vessels with some of the new mechanical fog-horns, which can be kept sounding for a long time, from giving signals which might be mistaken for a steamer's whistle, or the siren of a steamer.

Captain SHACKFORD (United States). Mr. President, the term "short blast on a steam-whistle" has been defined as one second. I submit that this might be understood as also to mean the length of a blast on a fog-horn unless we limit it or extend it to some definite length. I think that a blast of two or three seconds, certainly not less than two seconds, should be required of the fog-horn.

Admiral NARES (Great Britain). Mr. President, the fog-horns, up to the present time, as we explained, until within the last two or three years, when the Norwegian fog-horn came up, were incapable of making a long blast. They were incapable of blowing more than about a second. It was impossible for any man's lungs to continue blowing this trumpet for more than a second at a time. We were informed by the fisherman who came to see us that out of all his crew he could only get two or three men who could blow it at all; that it depended upon the man's lungs, and that it was quite out of the question to talk of blowing it continuously for half an hour; and that, in fact, they only blew it when the vessels were coming near them. The words "of about one second" will include more than one second. If you leave out the word "short" and leave it as it stands, it is not a very material matter; but fog-horns are now coming into use which are capable of making long blasts and short blasts and we thought it would be best to prevent them from making a long or a prolonged blast. I think, however, the Conference will be able to decide this question. I have tried to put it as clearly as possible. We adopt one second as "short" on a steam-whistle. If that same limit will not do for a fog-horn, then we had better leave out the word "short" altogether.

Captain NORCROSS (United States). Mr. President, I think it is better to define that as "not to exceed three seconds."

The PRESIDENT. Do you mean that as an amendment to section c?

Captain NORCROSS (United States). I propose that as an amendment to Mr. Hall's amendment.

The PRESIDENT. The delegate from the United States proposes to define the term "short blast" in the amendment of the delegate from Great Britain as "not to exceed three seconds."

Admiral NARES (Great Britain). Mr. President, I am quite certain that if you are going to give one limit for a steam-whistle and another limit for a fog-horn, then you must provide that there must be a long or a prolonged blast on the whistle of from four to six seconds, and if the Signal Committee are going also to define that long blast on the fog-horn as being only three seconds, then we shall get into a very serious scrape. On behalf of the Sound-Signal Committee, I will say that we would sooner leave out the word "short" altogether if you are going to define two different shorts.

Captain MENSING (Germany). Mr. President, I think it would be desirable to strike out the word "short." If that is done, then there is really no difficulty, and there can be no mistake made. So far as I know there are only made on the fog-horn two or three blasts, and it matters little whether they are long or short. I think it would be advisable to strike out the word "short" altogether, and leave the rule as it is at present.

The PRESIDENT. Does the delegate from the United States consent to that?

Captain NORCROSS (United States). I accept that, sir.

The PRESIDENT. The question then is upon the proposition of the delegate from Germany to strike out the word "short."

Mr. GOODRICH (United States). Mr. President, it is not in yet. There is no necessity for that motion which has been made by the gallant delegate from Germany. We are voting upon the proposition of the committee to insert the word "short," and if the Conference do not like the word then they will vote the proposition of the committee down. Admiral NARES (Great Britain). Mr. President, I think the committee will withdraw the proposition altogether and leave out the word "short" in section c, and let that section stand as it is at present.

The PRESIDENT. The question now before the Conference is upon the adoption of section e, which will be read by the Secretary.

Section e, Article 12, is as follows:

"(e) A steam-vessel, when her engines are going full speed astern, shall sound on her whistle three short blasts."

Admiral NARES (Great Britain). Mr. President, I may say that the word "short" is more important here. We have introduced here three decided short blasts, so as to make the signal unmistakable.

Captain RICHARD (France). Mr. President, I am surprised to find this clause placed in Article 12, instead of being placed in Article 19 only, which is its proper place. You now not only render these soundsignals obligatory in ordinary weather, instead of optional, as they formerly were in Article 19, but you also make them compulsory in fog, mist, falling snow, etc. Formerly you admitted that in order to make these signals it was necessary that the two vessels should see each other; now they are to indicate their manœuvre without seeing each other. I do not think that this is right. Will it not add to the confusion when a signal is repeated and the direction of the sound is not known? I understood the old rule which governed a vessel's conduct in the matter of sound-signals, but now you set aside this rule. We have been told here that in order to avoid confusion at sea in a fog, when vessels do not see each other, that only long blasts will be used; short blasts to be used, only when vessels are in sight of each other, the sailing vessels to be distinguishable from steam-vessels in a fog by the character of the blast. This rule was rational and clear. Why has it not been followed ?

In my opinion, the committee has gone too far, in that it has mixed the long and the short blast. What is the use of departing from a wise rule for a vessel going full speed astern at sea? In the first place, I do not think that this manœuvre is a common one, but it may happen. Then I would like to know what advantage can be derived from the signal that the vessel is going astern when it is impossible to find out where she is ? If you enter upon that path you will have to give notice of many other interesting facts; but this you can not do, for then your signals will lose their simple character, which makes them valuable. Consequently I ask the Conference to confine itself to what is prescribed by Article 19, viz, when a vessel goes full speed astern in sight of another vessel, and that the paragraph which we are discussing be stricken from Article 12.

Captain MENSING (Germany). Mr. President, I would simply like to state that the German delegation agree with the gentleman who has spoken before me.

Captain MALMBERG (Sweden). Mr. President, I also do not see the necessity for introducing that signal in a fog when you do not see a vessel. If you do see a vessel, Article 19 will cover the case.

Mr. VERBRUGGHE (Belgium). Mr. President, I am of the same opinion.

The PRESIDENT. Is the Conference ready for the question? Section e will be read.

Section e of Article 12 is as follows:

"A steam-vessel, when her engines are going full speed astern, shall sound on her whistle three short blasts."

Admiral BOWDEN-SMITH (Great Britain). Mr. President, before this is put to a vote, might we be quite certain whether it is only to apply in a fog when vessels are in sight of each other?

Mr. GOODRICH (United States). Mr. President, if the gallant Ad miral will read the second subdivision of Article 12 as we have passed it, he will see that this subdivision e is part of the paragraph which commences: "In fog, mist, falling snow, or during heavy rain-storms, whether by day or night, the signals described in this article shall be used as follows." That is to say, it must be in a fog or in thick weather. Admiral NARES (Great Britain). Mr. President, the intention of the committee is this: Under Article 19 the signal has been made compulsory, provided a vessel does a certain action, provided she starboards, or ports, or goes full speed astern; but while Article 19 has been made compulsory, it is not to be allowed except when the other vessel is in sight. The committee want to go beyond that. They will not allow the starboard or the port signal to be made to a vessel which is not in sight, but they see no reason why the signal "I am going full speed astern" should not be made whether the other vessel is in sight or not. You have already, under Article 12, told the vessel to stop her engines. Whether that will include that she will stop altogether will depend upon the captain. Suppose the captain goes full speed astern instead of merely stopping his way; why should he not indicate that action to the other vessel which is not in sight? You have already given him another signal: "You may feel your way past me with caution and I will stop by." So that it is all dove-tailed together.

Under Article 19 you have made it compulsory to give the signals for the port and the starboard tack. I think they can only be made when the vessel is in sight; but yet this third signal, I am going full speed astern, may be made. While I am speaking about this there is one alteration which has been made. I am not quite clear whether we had a discussion about it or not; but I think we did. I think that it came up in the Conference, that the term "I am" was not definite and we have altered it to "my engines" are going full speed astern. We have kept the three short blasts which have been in use for ages.

Captain MALMBERG (Sweden). Mr. President, I am still of the opinion that section e ought not to come into the regulations, because if a steamer, according to the first paragraph in this article, stops her engines and then goes astern, section b covers her situation as being stopped-no I am mistaken in that. However, I should not like to introduce into rules like these a manœuvre to be made by a steamer not having the other vessel in sight, as the issue of such a manœuvre may, in a fog, bring about a collision. The safest way in a fog is to lay the ship dead still and ascertain the position of the vessels in your vicinity. I still think that this subdivision e ought not to come into the article.

Captain SAMPSON (United States). Mr. President, I entirely agree with the last gentleman who has spoken. I think that some signal as provided in Article 19, to indicate that a vessel is going full speed astern, is very needful when two ships meet in a fog and approach each other to a point where they become visible. I think that signal would be a good one; but that case would be covered by Article 19. If the vessels are not in sight of each other it seems to me that no useful information can be conveyed by indicating that the ship is going full speed astern. That may be the direction to avoid a collision or it may be the direction to produce a collision.

The PRESIDENT. Is the Conference ready for the question? The Secretary will please read section e again for the information of the Conference.

Section e is as follows:

"(e) A steam-vessel, when her engines are going full speed astern, shall sound on her whistle three short blasts."

The question was put to the Conference upon section e of Article 12, and the Chair being unable to decide, the yeas and nays were called for. The yea-and-nay vote is as follows:

The PRESIDENT. Five have voted in the affirmative and fifteen in the negative, so the paragraph is lost.

The next subject for consideration will be paragraph f. The Secretary will please read it.

Paragraph f is as follows:

"(f) A vessel, if a steam-vessel, at anchor in a fair-way at sea, shall, at intervals of not more than two minutes, sound two prolonged blasts with her whistle or siren, followed by ringing her bell; or, if a sailing vessel, two blasts with her fog-horn, followed by ringing her bell."

Mr. HALL (Great Britain). Mr. President, I move to strike out the words "at sea." I think it is very important that vessels in a fog should know that there is anything in a fair-way, whether it is at sea or in narrow waters. I think that as our object is to make these rules applicable to all waters, we ought to leave out the words "at sea." I must confess that I think the reasons given for this signal on the part of the committee are very valuable and forcible. They point out the principle upon which the signal is chosen, and I must confess that their reasons lead me to think that it is not likely to be easily mistaken.

Captain MENSING (Germany). Mr. President, I can not see my way exactly to adopt the last amendment proposed. We have already, under Article 14, a rule which provides that a steam-ship and a sailing ship when not under way shall at intervals of not more than two minutes ring a bell. Now, we have got another rule saying that a vessel, if a steam-vessel, at anchor in a fair-way at sea, shall at intervals of not