in a fog, and that is the way they attract a vessel to them; but it hap pens that in these waters there is no light-ship sounding a gong and they are not interfering with any other signal in the local waters. The chief thing which I wish to point out to the Conference is that you have already passed a vote to adopt the gong in lieu of the bell anywhere, and if you now agree to the foot-note of the committee you will be reconsidering that resolution.

Captain BISBEE (China). Mr. President, with reference to the asterisk after the word "bell" in the fourth. line of Article 12 on page 4 of this additional report of the Committee on Sound-Signals, and to the note at the bottom of that page, I would suggest that the part of that note following the words "Turkish vessels " be stricken out, and that reference marks be inserted after the word "bell" at the end of the next sentence and at the end of Article 10, to direct attention to a second foot-note, which shall read as follows: "Chinese vessels of native type may use a gong instead of a bell." Thus arranged it will at once be evident that the note refers to the native sailing craft, which are the only ones to whom the privilege would be of any value, as vessels of foreign type flying the Chinese flag will be provided with all the appliances for producing sound-signals that are found on board those of other nations.

Mr. HALL (Great Britain). Mr. President, as my gallant colleague has pointed out, we are asking the Conference to reconsider their vote. That is literally, perfectly true; but we all know that this word "gong" was put in purely for use in Chinese waters, because we understood that they used gongs instead of bells. With regard to the proposal of the delegate from China it will make it, I think, a little more cumbersome, but if he will let us see it in writing we can perhaps come to some conclusion about it. It is merely a matter for the Collocation Committee.

Captain BISBEE (China). I am willing to have it submitted to the Collocation Committee.

Mr. FLOOD (Norway). Mr. President, I will take the liberty to make a remark about these words "efficient bell." I said on the first reading, and I think I have the right to point out now, that these terms do not properly express the requirements necessary in the bell. We all know that there are a great many of these bells which are made of cast-iron and can hardly be heard at all. In my country we have strict regulations about this, and the bells are inspected by the Government inspectors. The bell, the fog horn, the signal light, and everything is inspected. But I understand that there are a great many countries where this is not done. I think it would be very proper for us not to insert it exactly in the rule, but in a short foot-note, stating that what we mean by an efficient bell, is a bell made of a composite metal and not of iron. I think that in the English regulations 10 inches in diameter is required in the bell; but that does not cover the point. I would submit that

the Collocation Committee be directed to frame a foot-note for the purpose of defining what an efficient bell is, that it is to be a bell made of composite metal, and to have a good sound.

Mr. GOODRICH (United States). I would suggest to the gallant delegate from Norway that if we do that we shall have to describe what "efficient" means in every other place in the rules.

Mr. FLOOD (Norway). Mr. President, I speak here from practical experience, and I think that some of my colleagues present will agree with me when I say that we have had a great deal of trouble from this cause. I will not say that I have heard bells made of tin, but I will say that I have heard them when made of iron, and I do not think they could be heard a ship's length.

Mr. GOODRICH (United States). Mr. President, it seems to me that the subject has already been discussed and passed upon by the Conference. If we are going to adopt the system of rediscussing a subject which has been thoroughly considered, the result will be the extension of this Conference for several weeks.

Mr. FLOOD (Norway). Mr. President, that is the very reason why I did not propose any alteration in the rule, but I simply submitted whether it would not be well to have a foot-note to explain what was meant by "an efficient bell." It should provide that the bell should be made of proper material, and not of cast-iron. It has been pointed out that this has been discussed in the Conference. I do not think that any one has stated at what distance the bell should be heard. We have the term "efficient light," but, at the same time, we have provided a range for the light. But there has been no rule laid down as to what distance the bell should be heard.

Mr. GOODRICH (United States). Mr. President, may I suggest to the delegate that if he will refer that to the Collocation Committee I am sure the committee will be glad to consider it, as well as any other suggestions from other members.

Mr. FLOOD (Norway). Mr. President, I only ask that it be referred to the Collocation Committee.

Mr. HALL (Great Britain). Mr. President, may I point out that the business before us to-day is not the revision of the rules which have been passed by the Conference. It is only to take into consideration such alterations as are necessary in these rules in consequence of the additional report of the Committee on Sound-Signals. Now, we have discussed this question as to bells at very great length. We all agree with the gallant delegate as to the desirability of vessels being provided with proper bells, but we agreed that it was not necessary to put any thing into the rules beyond saying that the bell must be an effi cient one, and that we must see that the rule is enforced in our respective countries. If the Collocation Committee would put in a note to that effect it would be going contrary to the decision of the Conference. The Conference decided distinctly that the words "efficient bell" were

sufficient, and that it should be left to the respective countries to see that that provision is properly enforced. I only rise to point out the extreme difficulty we shall be in if, when we are discussing the report of the Committee on Sound-Signals, the whole of the rules are to be reconsidered, without any motion for a reconsideration. There is nothing in the sound signal report with regard to an "efficient bell," and if we waste half an hour in the discussion over that we may just as well discuss every other rule.

Mr. VERNEY (Siam). Mr. President, I only rise to express the hope that the natives with small vessels in Siam shall be given the same privileges that are being claimed by the native boats in China. I am informed that the use of the gong is very common on board of these small boats in Siamese waters.

Captain MENSING (Germany). Mr. President, I am very sorry to see that the introduction of the gongs is to be restricted in the manner proposed by the Committee on Sound-Signals, because it would have been much better for us to have voted upon the other proposition which was laid down, requiring that a gong might be used on all vessels. The wording of the amendment leaves doubt about it. I believe that only the first paragraph of Article 12 is under consideration at present, so I shall defer what I have to say about small boats until later on, when the second paragraph of Article 12 comes under consideration. If we have the gong introduced everywhere, it will have one advantage. I have stated before that the provision with regard to Turkish vessels was only upon religious grounds, and it was left optional with them to use the gong. I think very likely that the Turkish vessels will substitute the gong for their very inefficient sound-signals, because I believe that a drum used in a fog, or in wet weather, can scarcely be heard.

There is an insertion made here: "A sailing vessel of 20 tons gross tonnage and upwards shall be provided with a similar fog-horn and bell." Those words are not in italics, though they are a change from the old text. Now, a question has been brought up as to whether mistakes would not result by confusing these gongs with gongs on board of light vessels. The gongs which are used on board of these light vessels, as has been so ably pointed out by the gallant delegate from Great Britain, are very clumsy affairs. I believe that it would be just as difficult to make a mistake between a gong on board of a light vessel and a small gong on board of a merchant vessel, as there would be in mistaking the sound of two bells. I believe the gong should be only introduced in the smallest kind of vessels. I wish to say that there is just as little difficulty in distinguishing between the notes of these two gongs as there is in distinguishing between the sounds of two bells. Very often a distinguishing signal used on board of a light vessel is by ringing the bell a certain number of times, and then giving one, two, or three strokes of the bell afterward. The same thing can be introduced

here. Taking everything into consideration, I should object to having the change made as provided in the foot note adopted by the committee, and should be glad to have the Conference keep the resolution which has been already adopted.

Captain NARES (Great Britain). Mr. President, the terms "A sailing vessel of 20 tons gross tonnage and upwards shall be provided with a similar fog-horn and bell" were included there in consequence of the Conference having passed that part of Article 10 where it says in connection with the light, "paragraph a of this article applies only to vessels and boats propelled by sails and oars of less than 20 tons gross tonnage." The Committee on Sound-Signals also thought it better to name the precise tonnage, and to make the largest of these vessels 20 tons. That should have been put into italics to draw attention to it, and I very much regret that it was not done. I may say that the first wording of the note was "a gong in Chinese or other waters where such articles are commonly used aboard small sea-going vessels," we were obliged to put in the words "sea-going" to distinguish from lightships. But if the Conference think it necessary to include other than the Chinese waters, I am sure the Committee on Sound-Signals will not object. We are quite willing to allow the gongs to come into use wherever it can possibly be done without danger to navigation.

Commander CHEN NGEN TAO (China). Mr. President, I think it is very wise to leave out the words "in Chinese waters," because a Chinese vessel may use a gong and go out beyond Chinese waters.

Admiral NARES (Great Britain). Mr. President, I am sure the committee will be very glad of that alteration and to take out the words "Chinese waters."

Captain MENSING (Germany). Mr. President, Will the Committee on Sound-Signals be willing to strike out the word "commonly"? It would make a difference to the German delegation with regard to the paragraph. If that could be done I believe there will be very little difficulty about accepting it as it stands now. If the use of the gong is made optional, I believe that we could accept the paragraph just as it stands here; if this is not done we will find difficulty in the next paragraph. Of course those vessels which are going up and down our coast would never be in a position to be mistaken for light-vessels, which, so far as I know, are only found in the vicinity of the coast of England.

Captain MALMBERG (Sweden). Mr. President, I may state that there are several light vessels on the Swedish coast which sound the gong, and that is the reason why I opposed the use of the word "gong" when we discussed this article before. I would greatly prefer that this gong should come in as the foot-note proposed by the Committee on SoundSignals.

Captain MENSING (Germany). Mr. President, I would like to move that the word "Chinese" and the word "commonly," in the foot-note of this paragraph, be struck out.

Admiral NARES (Great Britain). Mr. President, I of course can not speak for my colleagues on the committee, but if any of them object I wish they would say so. According to my recollection of the conversation that went on in the committee I should say that we are quite willing to take out those two words.

Mr. HALL (Great Britain.) Mr. President, may I point out that it is not necessary to have the words "in Chinese waters?" It will then read, "and a gong where such articles are used on board small sea-going vessels."

The PRESIDENT. Is the Conference ready for the question?

Captain MENSING (Germany). Mr. President, I propose that the word "will" be changed to "may."

The PRESIDENT. If there is no objection the word "may" will be introduced in place of "will." Before putting the question upon this, the motion of the delegate from Norway, to refer the words "efficient-bell" to the Collocation Committee to prepare a foot note, will be in order.

Mr. FLOOD (Norway). Mr. President, I do not like to press my request. I thought it my duty to put it before the Conference and to give them my ideas with regard to the matter. I have done so to the best of my ability, and now that the learned delegates, especially the learned first delegate from Great Britain, have spoken against it, I suppose it is not worth while for me to try any more.

The PRESIDENT. Does the delegate withdraw it?

Mr. FLOOD (Norway). Yes, sir; I withdraw it.

Mr. HALL (Great Britain). Mr. President, the delegate from Norway says I spoke against his proposition. I pointed out that we were not entitled to discuss it without the delegate moved a resolution which was carried by a three-fourths vote to reconsider the question, which had been previously thoroughly discussed by the Conference.

Mr. VERNEY (Siam). Mr. President, there is just one other little alteration to this foot note, to change the word "and" to "or."

Mr. HALL (Great Britain). Mr. President, I think the delegate from Siam may safely leave that to the Collocation Committee.

The PRESIDENT. The note will be read with these numerous alterations.

The note is as follows:

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

The question was put to the Conference upon the adoption of the foot note to Article 12, and it was adopted.

The PRESIDENT. The question now is upon the adoption of Article 12. Article 12 will be read.

Article 12 is as follows:

"A steam-ship shall be provided with a whistle or siren sounded by steam or other efficient substitute for steam, so placed that the sounds may not be intercepted by any obstructions, and with an efficient fog