Admiral NARES (Great Britain). Mr. President, the only alteration in this article is the insertion of the word "my engines are" instead of "I am" which is the old and very well-known signal "I am going full speed astern," which has been, perhaps wilfully, misunderstood. The wording of the article is very plain: "One short blast, I am directing my course to starboard"-that is, the ship is directing its course to starboard; "two short blasts, I am directing my course to port"-that is, the ship is directing her course to port; "three short blasts" means that the ship is going full speed astern. Now the question is, is it the ship or the engines? The ship practically is not going full speed astern. It was always intended that the engines should be going full speed astern. We have another signal for a ship being stopped, but no ship can go full speed astern. It is really intended that it is the engines which are to go full speed astern, and therefore we propose to make it quite clear by altering the words "I am" to "my engines are", so that it will read "my engines are going full speed astern." The PRESIDENT. Is the Conference ready for the question? Article 19 will be again read. "ARTICLE 19. In taking any course authorized or required by these regulations, a steam-vessel under way shall indicate that course to any other ship which she has in sight by the following signals on her whistle or other steam sound-signal, viz: One short blast to mean 'I am directing my course to starboard. Two short blasts to mean 'I am directing my course to port.' Three short blasts to mean 'my engines are going full speed astern." The question was put to the Conference upon the adoption of Article 19, as amended, and the article was adopted. The PRESIDENT. Article - will now be read. Article is as follows: "Every ship may, if necessary, in order to attract attention, in addition to the lights which she is by these regulations required to carry, show a flare-up light, or use any detonating signal that can not be mistaken for a distress signal." Admiral NARES (Great Britain). Mr. President, this was a reference especially made to the Fog-Signal Committee. It is a re-wording of the article which I believe the Conference practically adopted. We wanted to specify clearly what the detonating sigual was. Of course different countries will have different signals, but so long as they can make a noise I do not suppose that it makes much difference what the noise is if it can not be mistaken for a distress signal. So it has been reworded by the committee with that view. I believe that it was a detonating signal before, and it was provided how often it should be fired. But the practical outcome is that if a vessel is coming down upon you, you only make the noise once, if that is sufficient to attract attention, and if one sound is not enough you maketwo, or three, or four. You can pot lay down the number of times the signal shall be made, so we have S. Ex, 53-60 adopted the term, "any detonating signal." But to prevent it from being mistaken for a distress signal it must not be made once a minute and it must not be continuous. We have got out of the difficulty as well as we could to prevent it from being mistaken for a distress signal. Mr. GOODRICH (United States). Mr. President, I confess that I am not entirely clear about the propriety of this rule. I want to call the attention of the Conference to the condition of things which exists in the United States to-day under the legislation which Congress has adopted upon this subject. When Congress adopted the English rules of 1863 there was no provision in the rules of Great Britain or the rules adopted by the United States which permitted the showing of a flareup light to an approaching vessel. In 1871 Congress passed an act compelling a sailing ship upon the approach of a steam-vessel at night to show a lighted torch upon the point or quarter of the sailing vessel to which the steam-vessel was approaching. I am not aware whether Great Britain ever adopted that regulation at all. I think not. And I think that no other country adopted it. In 1879 Great Britain put into the rules a provision which we have adopted, that is, old Article 11-a ship which is being overtaken by another shall show from her stern to the last-mentioned ship a white light or a flare-up light. In my judgment that is a very proper rule. But the other rule, which requires a sailing vessel to show a flare-up light to an approaching steam-vessel, no matter what point she was approaching, whether forward or aft of the beam, was a very dangerous provision, and for the clear reason that if the lights upon the sailing vessel were properly set and burning brightly there was no occasion for this flare-up light-forward of the beam, of course, I mean. And if the flare-up light was shown the effect was to blind the eye of the lookout on the steamer and so extinguish for a time the appearance of the colored side lights. Now we are going back from the rule adopted in England in 1879, and afterwards by Congress in 1885, to the old rule of Congress, which never had any foundation in the English rules nor in the rules of any other country, so far as I am aware. I suggest that it is a very dangerous provision. Of course, I understand that this light is merely a flareup light that is only shown for an instant, and is only shown in order to attract attention, and is only shown if necessary in order to attract attention. It is a very flexible rule; but I doubt its wisdom very much indeed. If there is a vigilant lookout kept upon the approaching vessel, and if the lights which the Conference have now provided for both forward of the beam and aft of the beam are burning brightly, especially the stern light, if it is fixed as the law permits it to be, then there is no danger. The question is, whether you are going to add to these lights another light, or whether there is any necessity for adding that light. I must confess that I have very grave doubts, especially in view of the fact that no other countries ever adopted that rule of 1871, and also having regard to the fact, to which sailors can testify better than I, that the showing of this flare-up light will extinguish the side lights. Now, there is another point which rather goes to the wording of the rule than to its principle, and which shows the great difficulty which the committee found in introducing apt words to define exactly what they did mean. It says: "Every ship may, if necessary, in order to attract attention." In the first place this is a very general rule, that might serve for a pilot-boat. If it said that "it may be shown, if necessary to avoid collision," that would be another thing. But you have said: "If necessary to attract attention," and it covers the case of a pilot-signal; it covers the case of calling a tug-boat, etc. But the great principle which I object to lies back of that, that you are making the master of any vessel, a steam or a sailing vessel, the judge whether or not in impending danger, it is necessary for him to show this flare-up light, and so adding to the uncertainty of these rules. I must confess that I am not in favor of that rule as it stands at present, and I doubt whether the principle is a good one. I spoke to my learned brother, the delegate from Great Britain, this morning upon that subject; and we may get a little light from him. His remark this morning made a good deal of impression upon me. Our courts under the act of 1871 were frequently called upon to decide whether the rule of 1871 should have been obeyed; that is, whether a sailing vessel should have shown a flare-up light to a vessel approaching forward of the beam, where a sailing vessel's colored light or lights could be seen, and for a long time there was a very decided attempt and desire on the part of the court, as manifested in their opinions, to hold the sailing vessel free from responsibility for not having shown that light, upon the ground that it was unnecessary to show it, because the circumstances of the case developed the fact that the approaching steamer had seen her far enough away to avoid collision, and therefore the showing of the light would not have helped the steamer to avoid a collision. But, all the same, there was put upon the sailing vessel the burden of excusing herself, under similar language to this, or even under stronger language than this. There was put upon the sailing vessel the burden of showing that she was not in fault for not exhibiting the light. Now we are putting that same burden back upon the vessel. My learned friend says that was all very well when there was no such provision in the rule. But we did have this provision in the American rule, and it was under this rule that our decisions proceeded, when there was not only no prohibition against carrying these lights and showing this flare up light, but when there was an actual requirement that the flare-up light should be shown to an approaching vessel. I suggest that we are making these rules a little uncertain by putting in this clause. I had a case recently under the present rule where a sailing vessel coming up the channel found a steamer getting very close to her and did show this light, not authorized by the rules. An attempt was made to justify it upon the ground of the language in the 23rd rule, that it was perfectly evident that the approaching vessel did not see the sailing ship nor her lights, and was not aware of her presence, and, therefore, the flareup lights would give notice to the steamer that a vessel was there. But back of all this lies the principle whether it is wise for a vessel-take a steamer, for instance-exhibiting her bright masthead lights and two powerful side-lights, to show to a little sailing vessel a flare-up light. The rule embraces that case. It provides that every ship may, if necessary to attract attention, show a flare-up light. Suppose a steamer sees a sailing vessel approaching her Mr. HALL (Great Britain). She will have to keep out of her way. Mr. GOODRICH (United States). Mr. President, I understand that, but we know they do not always keep out of the way. A steam-vessel may show this light, under this rule, to attract the attention of the sailing vessel. How often does it happen that the excuse is made in New York harbor that three whistles are sounded to the sailing vessel! I do not say that it is a good law, or that it is good reasoning, or that it is justified by the rule; but the practice is that they sound three whistles to compel a sailing vessel to do something. Judge Benedict within a few days decided a case upon these points. Of course he stamped out the theory that a steamer could compel a sailing vessel to do anything except hold her course. But the excuse was made, and made under the rules. I suggest that it is a very dangerous provision to go into the rules. Mr. FLOOD (Norway). Mr. President, may I be allowed to make a few remarks in regard to this matter? When the expression "if necessary," or rather, when the fortieth amendment, which was originally intended to read, "at any time," was presented to the Conference, I took the liberty to propose an alteration so that it would read, "in an emergency." But that did not exactly meet with the approval of the Conference; and it was proposed by the learned delegate from Great Britain to alter it to "if necessary." I gladly accepted that because I thought it was better than at first, although it was not so good as to definitely point out the emergency. I understood by the discussion that everybody was agreed that this extra flare-up or detonating signal should only be used when it was actually necessary, and not in such cases as were pointed out by the learned delegate from the United States. I can not understand how any such signal as the one proposed should cause any mistake or make any trouble. On the contrary, I think it will help to get rid of collisions. Mr. HALL (Great Britain). Mr. President, I have no doubt the Conference will all recollect what happened, as has been pointed out by the delegate from Norway. I remember accepting at his suggestion the words " if necessary." It was originally drawn up, "every ship may at any time," and that rule was adopted in principle. I perfectly agree that it is open to the learned delegate from the United States to discuss the nature of the signal. May I point out to him that there is a very great difference between the old rule as used in the United States and this rule? But before I deal with that may I point out this: We considered this matter most carefully in London before we came here: we discussed it most thoroughly so as to see whether such a signal might be given. It was given to meet a generally felt want that a vessel might be in the position of a sailing vessel which sees a steamer coming down upon her but taking no steps to get out of her way, evidently with a bad lookout. Yet under the present rules that sailing vessel is to fold her arms, keep her course, and do nothing. That was put before us and we decidedand I think it is common sense-that the vessel might give a signal when it was necessary, but that she was not always to be doing it; and what sailor in the world would be burning a flare-up light when it was not necessary? I do not think that, as a rule, they are inclined to give these signals more than is necessary. We came to the conclusion that it is desirable to give to any vessel the power to give such a signal; but of course it is much more for the sailing vessel, because if a steamer sees a sailing vessel she has to get out of the way; while a sailing vessel has got to do nothing but keep her course. We then considered what the nature of the signal should be and we thought it should be a signal which a sailing vessel could give at once. They have always got a flare-up light ready. They could say to a steamer approaching them, which was keeping a bad lookout, "Here I am. Don't you see me? Keep out of my way." The flare-up light is the quickest thing they can get at. I will not deal with the sound. signal at all for the present. I only want to meet the objection of the learned delegate from the United States. May I now ask the attention of the learned delegate from the United States on his point, because I think he will see that there is a very broad distinction between the case he suggested and the present case? By your old rule here, every sailing vessel, as I understand it, was compelled to show a flare-up light to a vessel approaching her. I do not wonder that rule was revoked. Such a rule was a most dangerous one. When a vessel is approaching a sailing vessel keeping a good lookout, the flare-up does not give her any assistance at all, and it is a most onerous thing to put upon a sailing vessel the burden of burning a flareup light whenever she sees a vessel approaching. I do not wonder that this rule was done away with. But this is a signal which will be used very rarely and the sailor will only use it when he sees a vessel approaching him which he believes does not see him, and he wants to burn it in self-defense. If so, the sole point for us to consider is, what is the best signal he should give? We are all agreed that he should be allowed to give some signal. Can any one suggest a better one than the flare-up? You can not give a sailing vessel a |