[Distributed to the Council and the Members of the League.]

LEAGUE OF NATIONS

Geneva, March 1st, 1926.

ORGANISATION FOR COMMUNICATIONS

AND TRANSIT

EUROPEAN CONFERENCE

ON THE MEASUREMENT OF VESSELS

EMPLOYED IN INLAND NAVIGATION

Held in P aris , November 20th to 27th, 1925.

I. M i n u t e s o f t h e P l e n a r y M e e t i n g s o f t h e C o n f e r e n c e .

II. M i n u t e s o f t h e M e e t i n g s o f t h e T e c h n i c a l C o m m i t t e e .

III. A n n e x e s .

P ub lica tions of th e L eague of Nations

VIII. TRANSIT

1926. VIII. 1.

C. 107. M. 50. 1926. VIII.(C .E .J ./P .V .)

CONTENTS

l MINUTES OF T H E PL E N A R Y MEETINGS OF THE EUROPEAN CONFERENCE ON T H E MEASUREMENT OF VESSELS EMPLOYED IN INLAND

NAVIGATION.

First Meetin g , held on November 20th, 1925, a t 11 a.m. Pase

Opening S p e e c h .......................................................................................................................... 8

Election of C h a i r m a n ............................................................................................................. 8

Appointment of Credentials C om m ittee .............................................................................. 9Programme of W o r k ................................................................................................................. 9Meetings of the Conference .................................................................................................... 10Draft Convention on the Measurement of Vessels employed in Inland Navigation:

General D iscussion............................................................................................................. 10

Second Me e tin g , held on November 21st, 1925, a t 10 a.m.

Report of the Credentials C o m m i t t e e .............................................................................. 13Examination of the Draft Convention :

P r e a m b le ............................................................................................................................... 14Articles 1 and 2 ................................................................................................................. 16

Third Meeting , held on November 23rd, 1925, a t 10 a.m.Examination of the Draft Convention (continued) :

Article 3 ...................................................................................................................... 19Articles 4 and 5 ............................................................................................................. 19Article 6 .......................................................................................................................... 21Article 7 .......................................................................................................................... 22Article 8 .......................................................................................................................... 22Articles 9, 10, 11 and 1 2 ............................................................................................ 22Article 1 3 .......................................................................................................................... 22Articles 14 and 1 5 ............................................................................................................. 22

Constitution of the Drafting C o m m it te e .......................................................................... 22

Fourth Meeting , held on November 25th, 1925, a t 3.30 p.m.Examination of the Text of the Annex as adopted by the Technical Committee : 23

Article 1 .............................................................................................................................. 23Article 2 ............................................................................................................................... 24Article 4 .............................................................................................................................. 24Article 5 ............................................................................................................................... 24Ar.icle 6 ............................................................................................................................... 24Article 7 ............................................................................................................................... 24Article 8 ............................................................................................................................... 24Article 9 .............................................................................................................................. 24Article 1 0 ............................................................................................................................... 25Article 1 1 ............................................................................................................................... 25Articles 1, 3 and 9 ............................................................................................................. 25

Examination of the Draft Convention as adopted by the Drafting Committee :

P r e a m b le ............................................................................................................................... 26Article 1 ............................................................................................................................... 26Article 2 (former Article 3 ....................................................................................... 26Article 3 ............................................................................................................................... 27Article 4 (former Article 5 ) ...................................................................................... 27Article 5 (former Article 7 ) ....................................................................................... 28Article 6 (former Article 8 ) ....................................................................................... 28Article 7 (former Article 9 ) ...................................................................................... 29

Protocol of Signature : Text adopted by the Drafting Committee :

Paragraph A ...................................................................................................................... 29Paragraph B ...................................................................................................................... 30Paragraph D (former Article 6 ) ................................................................................... 30

S. d. N. 750 (A) + 825 (F). 3/26 — Imp. Réunies, Chambéry.

— 4 —

F ifth Meeting , held on November 26th, 1925, at 11 a.m. Pa2e

Protocol Articles of the C o n v e n t io n ..................................................................................... 3 jLanguages in which Tonnage Certificates should be drawn u p ................................... gjText of the Convention as adopted by the Drafting Committee :

Articles 8 and 9 ................................................................................................................ 33

Article 10 (new-)..................................................................................................................... 33

Articles 11, 12 and 1 3 ....................................................................................................... 33

Article 1 4 ............................................................................................................................. 33

Sixth Meeting , held on November 27th, 1925, a t 9.30 a.m.

Communication by the Chairman of the Credentials Com m ittee....................................... 34

Second Reading of the Draft Convention and Annex :

Convention :Preamble and Articles 1, 2 and 3 ............................................................................... 34Article 4 ........................................................................................................................... 34Article 5 .......................................................................................................................... 34Article 6 .......................................................................................................................... 34Article 7 ( n e w ) ............................................................................................................. 34Articles 8 , 9, 10 and 1 1 .................................................................................................... 35Article 1 2 ............................................................................................................................. 35Articles 13, 14 and 1 5 ................................................................................................... 35

Annex :Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 , 7 and 8 .............................................................................. 35Article 9 ................................................................................................................................. 35

Addendum I, Forms I and I I ........................................................................................................ 35Table of Distinguishing Letters of S t a t e s ......................................................................... 35Protocol of Signature :

Paragraphs I and I I ............................................................................................................ 36Paragraph I I I ..................................................................................................................... 36Paragraph I V ..................................................................................................................... 36Paragraph V ......................................................................................................................... 36Paragraph V I ..................................................................................................................... 36Paragraph V I I ..................................................................................................................... 36

Languages in which Tonnage Certificates should be drawn up ( continued) . . . 36

Seventh Meeting , held on November 27th, 1925, a t 7 p.m.

Adoption of the Final Texts of the Convention, Annex, Protocol of Signature andthe Final A c t ......................................................................................................................... 37

Closing Speeches............................................................................................................................. 38

II. MINUTES OF THE MEETINGS OF TH E TECHNICAL COMMITTEE.

F i r s t M e e t i n g , held on November 21st, 1925, a t 4.30 p.m.

Election of C h a i r m a n ............................................................................................................ 39Draft Convention on the Measurement of Vessels employed in Inland Navigation:

General D iscussion ............................................................................................................ 39Examination of the Annex to the Draft Convention :

Article 1 .............................................................................................................................. 41Article 2 .............................................................................................................................. 41Article 3 .............................................................................................................................. 41

S e c o n d M e e t i n g , held on November 24th, 1925, a t 10 a.m.

Draft Convention on the Measurement of Vessels employed in Inland Navigation :General Discussion ( continued) .................................................................................. 42

Examination of the Annex to the Draft Convention (continued) :Article 3 ( continued) .......................................................................................................... 42Article 4 ............................................................................................................................. 44

— 5 —

Third Meeting , held on November 24th, 1925, a t 3.30 p.m. Page

Examination of the Annex to the Draft Convention (continued) :

Article 5 .............................................................................................................................. 45Article 4 (co n t in u ed ) ...................................................................................................... 45Article 6 .............................................................................................................................. 46Article 7 .............................................................................................................................. 47Article 8 .............................................................................................................................. 47Article 9 .............................................................................................................................. 47Articles 10 and 11 and the Forms reproduced in Addendum I ............................ 48

Fourth Meetin g , held on November 26th, 1925, a t 3.30 p.m.

Measurement of Tugs : General Discussion......................................................................... 49Examination of the Annex to the Draft Convention (continued) :

Article 4 (continued) ...................................................................................................... 51Article 9 ( continued) ....................................................................................................... 52

Preamble of the A n n e x .......................................................................................................... 52Article 1 (continued) ....................................................................................................... 52Article 2 (continued) ....................................................................................................... 52Article 3 (continued) ....................................................................................................... 53Article 5 (continued) ....................................................................................................... 53Article 6 (continued) .............................................................................................. 53Article 8 (continued) ....................................................................................................... 53Article 9 (continued) ....................................................................................................... 53

Draft Convention on the Measurement of Vessels employed in Inland Navigation (continued) :

Article 4 ............................................................................................................................... 54

Change of Weight of a Vessel................................................................................................ 54Model of Uniform C e r t i f i c a t e ............................................................................................ 54Closing Speeches.......................................................................................................................... 54

III. Annexes ....................................................................................................................................... 55

MINUTES OF THE PLENARY MEETINGS OF THE EUROPEAN

CONFERENCE ON THE MEASUREMENT OF VESSELS

EMPLOYED IN INLAND NAVIGATION.

FIR ST (PLENARY) MEETING.

Held on November 20th, 1925, at 11 a.m.

Chairman : M. d e M o n z i e , French Minister of Public Works ; and afterwards Senator A. M a h i e u .

Present :

Austria :

Belgium :

British Empire

Bulgaria :

Czechoslovakia :

Finland :

France :

Germany :

Greece :

Hungary :

Italy :

Lithuania :

Netherlands :

Poland :

Roumania :

Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes :

Spain :

Sweden :

M. P. Z i f f e r e r ,M. L. R o e s l e r .

M. J . B r u n e t ,M. D. B o u c k a e r t .

Mr. J . G . B a l d w i n , C.B.,Mr. A. J . D a n i e l .

M. Jordan D a n t s c h o f f .

M. Bohuslav M ü l l e r ,M. J o s e p h P r o c h a z k a .

M. C. E n c k e l l .

M. Silvain D r e y f u s ,M. D é s i r é B o u r g e o i s ,M. J . M i l l o t ,M. L. D e v a l .

M. G. F r a n o u x ,M. F . G e h l h a a r .

M. G . M e z e v i r i s .

M. Alfred D i e t r i c h d e S a c h s e n f e l s .

M. C arlo R o s s e t t i ,M. G. B o g e t t i ,M. G. F a l c e t t i ,M. E . M e l l i n i .

M. G. D o b k e v i c i u s .

M. G. v a n S l o o t e n ,M. A. v a n D r i e l .

M. George B o g o r y a - K u r z e n i e c k i .

M. G. P o p e s c o .

M. Fran V i l f a n .

Marquis d e F a u r a ,M. Enrique R o d r i g u e z y F e r n a n d e z M e s a .

M. Per Axel L i n d b l a d ,M. Sven Emil B e r g i u s .

Switzerland : M. A. R y n i k e r .

Governing Commission of theSaar Territory : M. F. Campus,

M. N. H o f f m a n n .

— 8 —

European Commission of theDanube : M. Francis R e y .

M. A. B a u l e .

M. C. v o n R e n t h e - F i n k .

M. P. Ch a r g u e r a u d - H a r t m a n n .

M. Jean H o s t i e .

M. H a a s , Secretary-General of the Advisory and

Technical Committee for Communications and Transit ;

M. R o m e i n , Secretary of the Sub-Committee for Inland Navigation.

Opening Speech.

M. d e M o n z i e , Minister of Public Works (France). — Gentlemen — Before we begin our work, it is my privilege to offer you a welcome on behalf of the French Government.

At this opening meeting, the Chair should have been taken by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, b u t he has asked me to welcome you in his stead. I am only too glad to do so, and I should like to emphasise the significance of the fact th a t the Minister of Public Works is present here a t the Quai d ’Orsay to open your proceedings.

There was a time when a conference of this kind, called a t Paris by the French Govern­ment, would, as a m atter of course, have been held a t the Ministry of Public Works itself ; bu t a great innovation has been made which will be of incalculable benefit to the cause of peace in Europe. Thanks to th a t great and noble institution, the League of Nations, all technical discussions, whatever their object, are held under the League’s auspices. The ques­tion a t issue m ay be, as it is to-day, the establishment of methods of tonnage measurement in inland navigation ; or, as recently, the standardisation of buoyage systems ; or, as even earlier, the choice of a continuous brake ; bu t in every case the procedure takes the form of a meeting held with a viewr to an international agreement consonant wTith the main problem of the standardisation of methods and technical formulas. Instead, therefore, of holding this Conference in the great technical departm ent of which I am the tem porary Head, your work will be begun and ended in this beautiful building on the Quai d ’Orsay which is hence­forth dedicated to the service of peace.

I m ust crave your pardon for dwelling upon this interpretation of your presence here and the significance of this place as the venue of this Conference. And now, having offered you, on behalf of my Government, a welcome inspired by these lofty sentiments, I venture to offer you a more modest greeting as Minister of Public Works. Not only will your labours be closely and carefully followed by myself as Minister of Public Works and by the departments of th a t Ministry, bu t the latter will afford you any and every assistance of which you may stand in need. We shall be proud and honoured to do all in our power to carry out the decisions which you reach.

Election of Chairman.

Mr. J . G. B a l d w i n (British Empire). — I desire first to thank M. de Monzie, Minister of Public Works, for the kind words he has spoken. The Government of the French Republic has been good enough to invite us to meet here in Paris and has offered us its proverbial hospitality. I t has appointed as its plenipotentiary representative Senator Mahieu, whose great abilities are well known to us all. I think, therefore, th a t I am speaking for the whole Conference when I thank the French Government and request M. Mahieu to do us the honour of presiding over our proceedings.

M. d e M o n z i e . — Gentlemen — I beg to thank you, not only on behalf of M. Mahieu bu t also on behalf of the French Parliament, for having chosen him as your Chairman. It is a great honour for us to have a man of M. Mahieu’s qualities in the perm anent service of the French Government, in view of the technical difficulties of the present situation and the future developments to which it m ay give rise. It is incidentally a proof th a t the parliamentary regime is readily adaptable to a system of permanent administrative services.

InternationalDanube Commission :

International Elbe Commission:

International Oder Commission:

Central Commission for Rhine Navigation :

Secretariat :

M. Mahieu took the Chair.

— 9 —

The C h a i r m a n . — I desire first of all to offer you my sincerest thanks for the honour you have done my country in calling upon me to assume the Chairmanship of the Conference, j know how difficult a task it is, and I shall strive to be worthy of the confidence you have placed in my country and in myself.

I will not recount to you all th a t we have to do, since I am addressing those who have examined the question in all its aspects, and I am sure th a t most of you are far better versed in the subject than myself.

Since the Barcelona Conference, the League of Nations, through its Communications and Transit Committee, has been seeking ways and means of standardising the tonnage measurement of vessels employed in inland navigation. I t considered th a t this question came within the scope of the questions referred to a t Barcelona as being calculated to secure equality of trea tm en t for all the nations which signed the Covenant.

Both in itself and by the force of circumstances, the question of tonnage measurement in inland navigation very greatly affects the smoothness of communications and has a parti­cularly marked influence on transit traffic ; and I therefore think th a t when, in 1922, the League laid down th a t an agreement among all civilised States was an indispensable first step, it accomplished much for the development of international commerce and for the improvement of economic conditions in every country.

I think th a t the League has taken the right course and th a t we should lose no opportunity of affording it all the assistance in our power. I should remind you, too, th a t as early as 1898, il I remember aright, Belgium took the initiative in calling an international conference on flis question, the results of which were very important.

I t was the Convention concluded at th a t Conference which served as a basis for the preliminary work of the League, and it will also form the basis of our own wrork. In view of the large num ber of States interested in the m atter, the whole problem is a most intricate one.

Take, for example, countries on a river as long as the Danube. These countries do not all have the same customs and usages, and consequently inland navigation cannot obtain all the facilities for crossing the different frontiers th a t might be desired. If, therefore, tonnage measurement were standardised, the advantages to all countries would be very great indeed, and we m ust approach the problem resolved to obtain positive results.

The work of the present Conference has been carefully prepared by the League of Nations. The special Technical Committee, under the able Chairmanship of our colleague, M. Bouckaert, and the Inland Navigation Sub-Committee of the Advisory and Technical Committee, to wrhose Chairman, M. Silvain Dreyfus, I offer a welcome, have step by step defined the problem and so made it possible to prepare the preliminary d raft regulations now before you. This pre­liminary d raft is to be the basis of your work. Will i t give us the Convention which we desire ? I sincerely hope so, and in the interests of the Conference I should like to see the final tex t reached without delay.

W ith your assistance, gentlemen, we shall, I hope, reach results which will not only benefit our own countries bu t well be in the best interests of all civilised nations.

Appointment of Credentials Committee.

The C h a i r m a n proposed th a t a committee of three members, namely, the Marquis d e F a u r a , M. E n c k e l l and M. R o s s e t t i , should be formed to examine the credentials of delegates.

The Chairman’s proposal was accepted and the Committee was appointed.

Programme of Work.

The Ch a i r m a n . — I think, as I said, th a t the best and quickest course would be to base our discussions on the tex t which you have all received (see Annexes 1 and 2).

This tex t is, of course, open to amendment, bu t I think that, if we wish to avoid delay, we m ust take it as our basis of discussion.

The Chairman’s proposal was adopted.

The C h a i r m a n . — I further propose th a t we should have a general discussion before we examine the individual articles. The views of some members of the Conference on the problem as a whole m ay differ from the general ideas accepted by M. Bouckaert’s and M. Dreyfus’ Committees, and I think it essential th a t the Conference should be acquainted with them.

The Chairman’s proposal was adopted.

— 10 —

The C h a i r m a n . — W e have now to decide when the general discussion is to be opened

The Conference decided to open the general discussion at once.

Meeting's of the Conference.

The C h a i r m a n . — We shall hold a plenary meeting of the Conference or of the full Com­mittee every morning from 1 0 a.m. to 1 p.m. and meetings of sub-committees, whenever necessary, in the afternoon.

The Chairman’s proposal was adopted.

Draft Convention on the M easurement of V essels employed in Inland Navigation : General Discussion.

M.PopEsco(Roumania) desired to elaborate his statements made before the Sub-Committee on Inland Navigation. He had always urged th a t a single and uniform system of tonnage measurement should be adopted or else th a t they should indicate more clearly methods that would have the same effect. Such a course would undoubtedly have very great advantages. I t would make it possible to compare the statistics of different waterways, and would also pave the way for an international convention providing a uniform method of preparing the statistics of traffic on navigable waterways. He had also argued that, if they could not decide what was the best system now, they could not do so in ten years’ time either.

If they examined the Minutes of the discussions of the Sub-Committee for Inland Navi­gation, they would see th a t the members of th a t Sub-Committee had found th a t the Rou­manian system was to a certain extent identical with the Rhine system and tha t , according to the German experts, it also produced the same results as the Elbe system, whereas the la tter did not produce the same results as the Rhine system.

Since, therefore, the Roumanian system admittedly produced results similar to those of the other two systems, and since it was based on mathematical principles which were generally accepted for the measurement of the volume of bodies whose length was greater than their width, he could see no difficulty in the immediate adoption of this system as the standard system.

If there were any reasons of which he was unaware which prevented them from adopting the Roumanian system, he would ask th a t either Article 2 of the Draft Convention or Article 4 of the Annex should be brought into conformity with the report of the Sub-Committee for Inland Navigation. He desired to submit an amendment which would more accurately interpret the intention of Article 2, namely :

“ . . . and the system of vertical planes a t present employed in Roumaniaunder the Regulations of 1923. ”

As regards Article 6 , i t would be desirable, with a view to standardising waterways statistics, to adopt a single form of certificate based on a single method of tonnage measure­ment. It, would be a practical proceeding for inland waterway craft to have a supplemen­ta ry certificate, giving the registered tonnage, in order to meet the requirements of States which levy charges based on registered tonnage.

Although for special reasons it might be found preferable to use registered tonnage for the measurement of sea-going shipping, th a t system was not suitable for inland waterway craft. I t would be much better to use a standard method of tonnage measurement for inland waterway navigation in all European countries.

Lastly, as regards fuel, M. Popesco had suggested the adoption by the Sub-Committee of the principle that, for purposes of charges on shipping, the volume occupied by the fuel necessary for the ship’s engines should be deducted from the to ta l tonnage.

M. R o s s e t t i (Italy) desired to lay down a general principle. The Italian Government would like to know the exact geographical area to which the Convention to be drawn up would apply. Was it to be applied to international or internationalised waterways only, or to national waterways as well ? On th a t point the Preamble was not clear. Italy, for example, had no international waterways or waterways of international concern, and he would therefore like to knowT whether other countries could, on the basis of the Convention, call upon Italy to provide facilities for international navigation. If th a t were taken as the meaning of the Preamble, he would have to reserve his opinion on the m atter.

The Italian Government could agree to adopt such a system of tonnage m e a s u r e m e n t and to recognise foreign tonnage-measurement certificates, so îong as it desired to have foreign shipping on its national waterways. If, on the other hand, it did not desire to provide facilities for international navigation on its national waterways, could the Convention be in v ok ed to compel it to allow such navigation ?

Mr. B a l d w i n (British Empire) agreed with these remarks. The British G o v e r n m e n t

understood th a t the object of the Convention was to facilitate international c o m m u n i c a t i o n s .

If, therefore, the only possible communications between any two countries were national and not international, neither of those countries would have the right to require the other to amend its regulations. England was in this position. He therefore thought that the Preamble would have to be amended and made clearer.

11 —

M. B r u n e t (Belgium) said that, by signing the Convention, the countries would undertake to allow shipping measured by the prescribed systems to enter their territory without having the tonnage re-measured. He agreed that, in view of the special geographical situation of Italy and Great Britain, the obligations which those two countries undertook on signing the Convention would have to be made clearer ; but, as regards other countries, the purport of the Convention was as he had just stated.

M. B o u c k a e r t (Belgium) said th a t the question had been considered by the Sub-Committee for Inland Navigation. Moreover, if they referred to the Minutes of tha t Sub-Committee (document C.397.M.136.1925), they would see th a t :

“ Mr. Baldwin said, in connection with M. Lép ne’s statement, th a t he had understood th a t the Convention would apply only to vessels crossing the frontiers and not to those employed simply in inland traffic. ” And further : “ M. Stievenard thought th a t the question was settled in the Preamble, which stated distinctly th a t the only vessels under consideration were those passing the frontiers. ”

Thus the Sub-Committee appeared to be definitely of opinion th a t the Convention would apply to vessels proceeding from one country to another, but th a t each country would be free to issue whatever internal regulations it wished.

Mr. B a l d w i n (British Empire) agreed with the Sub-Committee’s decisions. He pointed out, however, th a t a t the session in question the Polish representative had objected th a t the system proposed was not suitable and that, even if it were pu t into application, it would lead to inequality of treatm ent.

M. R o s s e t t i (Italy) stated th a t he would have been satisfied with M. Bouckaert’s explana- £ion if he had added th a t countries were free to allow foreign vessels on their national water­ways or not, as they pleased. He wished it to be clear th a t the Convention could not be used to force a country to allow foreign vessels on its national waterways. A categorical answer was essential in order to avoid any future misunderstanding.

M. B o u c k a e r t (Belgium), replying to Mr. Baldwin, quoted another passage from the Minutes of the second session of the Sub-Committee for Inland Navigation :

“ M. Winiarski said th a t the use of two different systems of tonnage measure­ment — one for vessels remaining in the country and one for those to be employed in international traffic — might involve differential treatm ent in favour of either one or other of these categories within the country.

“ Mr. Baldwin did not think th a t the question of differential treatm ent raised by M. Winiarski came within the scope of a convention on tonnage measurement. ”

Thus all the members of the Sub-Committee had evidently thought th a t the Preamble would satisfy the requirements of all.

M. H a a s said th a t the Convention had only one object and th a t was undoubtedly of a technical nature. I t was to enable any vessel to enter a foreign country without being obliged to have its tonnage re-measured. Clearly, therefore, it could not apply' to the regulations in force on national waterways. No signatory State would ever be obliged to allow vessels on its national waterways if it did not wish.

M. R o s s e t t i (Italy) declared himself satisfied with th i s statement.

M. R o m e i n , replying to the question raised by Mr. Baldwin, stated th a t it was clearly understood th a t sea-going vessels could still be measured by the system of tonnage measure­ment already in force. The question was perhaps somewhat more complicated in the case of vessels employed in both maritime and inland navigation. To cover such cases, the Sub- Committee adopted the principle tha t , if such a vessel had a certificate which conformed to the terms prescribed in the Convention, it would not need to be re-measured.

Mr. B a l d w i n (British Empire) said th a t he would raise this question again later and would then be able to say whether this explanation m et the special situation to which he had referred.

M. Silvain D r e y f u s (France) confirmed the explanation given b\r M. Haas. T h e y had only to read the Preamble to see what the Sub-Committee for Inland Navigation and, after­wards, the Advisory and Technical Committee had intended.

It was an incontrovertible fact th a t international communications byr means of inland waterway craft did exist. These communications were now giving rise to difficulties,because in certain cases the tonnage of vessels had to be re-measured a t frontiers. The object of the Convention was to obviate these difficulties and facilitate international communications. There could be no question, however, of creating international communications where theyr did not already exist or of imposing upon countries any obligations other than those which appeared in the Convention or its Annex.

Mr. B a l d w i n (British Empire) thought it should be made quite clear why the tonnage of a vessel had to be re-measured a t a frontier when it was on an international river, because, according to the existing treaties, navigation on these rivers ought to be free.

The C h a i r m a n proposed th a t this point should b e discussed when they dealt with the P ream b le .

Mr. B a l d w i n (British Empire) asked why countries required vessels to be re-measured at frontiers.

— 12 —

M. Silvain D r e y f u s (France) replied tha t it was on account of a number of charges such as port dues, navigation dues, etc. These charges were based on factors which were used in the operation called tonnage measurement. If this operation were carried out in accordance with a standard system recognised by all countries, there would be no need for re-measurement

M. B r u n e t (Belgium) thought it would be desirable to affirm a t the outset th a t the regu­lations which could be embodied in a convention on tonnage measurement m ust be largely determined by the statutes of international rivers.

M. V i l f a n (Kingdom of t h e Serbs, Croats and Slovenes) agreed with M. Brunet.

The C h a i r m a n proposed tha t the Conference should place this general observation on record, as it brought out the relation between the various acts drawn up by International River Commissions and decisions of the present Conference.

M. H o s t i e (Central Commission for Rhine Navigation) thought th a t the idea which M. Brunet had expressed might with advantage be embodied in the Convention as an additional article. Some International Commissions issued tonnage-measurement regulations ; some indeed actually re-measured vessels themselves. While avoiding entering into details regarding the powers of individual Commissions, it would be desirable th a t this idea should be embodied in a special article and th a t it should be made clear th a t there was no intention of encroaching upon any powers which the International Commissions might possess in this matter.

The C h a i r m a n pointed out tha t if they drafted an additional article they would have to wreigh all its terms very carefully ; otherwise the Conference might go further than it had intended and might even draft a tex t th a t i t could not apply.

M. Silvain D r e y f u s (France) desired to say th a t the Sub-Committee for Inland Navigation, of which he was Chairman, had discussed the present draft Convention article by article. More than once it had raised the question whether a certain point was not a t variance with the Barcelona Convention. I t had thus constantly borne th a t General Convention in mind, The present Conference would do well to adopt the same policy and, if it thought necessary, add a final article to the Convention.

The C h a i r m a n observed tha t the im portant point was to see th a t there was no inconsis­tency between the decisions th a t were eventually taken and those which had been taken by the River Commissions themselves. That was what made the question so difficult and complex. They might find it impossible to draft an additional article.

M. B r u n e t (Belgium) said th a t the general question which he had raised had been sug­gested to him by a case in point referred to by Mr. Baldwin, who had asked whether certain of the States represented at the Conference had the right to contract engagements which would render tonnage measurement obligatory.

As regards the Rhine, for example, such engagements would involve a decision of the Central Commission for Rhine Navigation.

Mr. B a l d w i n (British Empire) stated th a t the present duty of the Conference was to pre­pare a Convention on Tonnage Measurement in the hope th a t the various countries would after­wards try to bring their own agreements and regulations into line with the Convention.

M. F r a n o u x (Germany) pointed out th a t the principal object of the Conference should be to bring about the reciprocal recognition of certificates issued under the system which it would draw up itself and those issued under the Rhine and Elbe systems. His Government was particularly anxious tha t tonnage-measurement certificates issued under the Elbe system should be recognised as equivalent to those issued under the other systems.

M. P o p e s c o (Roumania) reminded the Conference th a t tonnage measurement was a purely technical operation which in no way affected the statutes of international rivers. If a vessel sailing on an international river crossed the frontier of a country and did not w'ish to carry out any operations in th a t country, it was not obliged to be measured -or re-measured. Ii it did wish to carry' out operations there, however, it had to be measured in accordance with a technical method laid down by the Convention. He could not see how the Conference’s work, which was of a purely technical nature, could affect the regime of international rivers.

Mr. B a l d w i n (British Empire) did not agree.

M. D o b k e v i c i u s (Lithuania) cited a particular case, th a t of timber floating. I t was open to question whether the measurement of timber rafts could be regarded as tonnage measurement.

The C h a i r m a n pointed out that the Convention referred to vessels and not rafts.

M. M ü l l e r (Czechoslovakia) said th a t this question was of particular importance for his own country, wrhich was situated a t the water-parting of three great rivers, the Danube, the Oder and the Elbe. As regards the Elbe, tonnage measurement was standardised at pre­sent between Germany and Czechoslovakia by the Tonnage Regulation of Ju ly 15th, 1913, issued as the result of an agreement in the m atter between Germany and Austria-Hungary. Up to 1913, tonnage measurement was compulsory ; in the new regulation mentioned above the obligation was not expressly stated, bu t it obtained in practice in virtue of other regulations.

— 13 —

On the Danube and the Oder there were no fixed uniform regulations and on the Danube measurement of vessels was not compulsory ; different systems were applied ; in Czecho­s lovakia , ' for example, the Elbe system. Clearly, however, this question was of special impor­tance, since the intention was to enact uniform legislation in th a t country. M. Müller was th e re fo re very pleased a t the first step towards standardisation taken by the Advisory and Technical Committee. He took the present d raft as the basis of discussion, bu t reserved the right to submit certain modifications or amendments.

The C h a i r m a n declared the general discussion closed and asked those delegates who wished to submit amendments to the Preamble or the Convention to hand them in as soon as possible to the Bureau.

He saw no objection to the Preamble being discussed first.

M. B o s s e t t i (Italy) proposed th a t a Technical Committee should b e appointed to examine the draft Annex, which dealt only with technical questions.

The C h a i r m a n proposed the following as members of this Committee :

Austria : M. R o e s l e r .Belgium : M. B o u c k a e r t .British Empire : M r. D a n i e l .Bulgaria : M. D a n t c h o f f .Czechoslovakia: M. M ü l l e r .France : M. D e v a l .Germany : M. G e h l h a a r .Hungary : M. d e D i e t r i c h .Italy : M. F a l c e t t i .Netherlands : M. v a n D r i e l .Roumania : M. P o p e s c o .Kingdom of the Serbs,

Croats and Slovenes : M. V i l f a n .Spain : M. R o d r i g u e z y F e r n a n d e z M e s a .Switzerland : M. R y n i k e r .International Danube

Commission: M. B a u l e .

It was decided that the Committee should consist of these members.

SECOND (PLENARY) MEETING.

Held on November 21s/, 1925, at 10 a.m.

Senator A. M a h i e u in the Chair.

Present : All those who attended the preceding meeting.

Secretariat : M. H aas and M. R o m e i n .

Report of the Credentials Committee.

M. R o s s e t t i (Italy) stated th a t the Credentials Committee had examined t h e credentials of seventeen delegations. The delegations of France, Italy, Lithuania, Norway and t h e U. S. S. R. had no t ye t presented their full powers. The powers of the following delegations were recognised as in good and due form :

Belgium,British Empire,Czechoslovakia,Finland,Germany,

The Polish delegation was also empowered to represent the Free City of Danzig, bu t had just stated th a t the Free City would not take part in the Conference. The powers of the Netherlands delegation were also in good and due form, but the Committee had felt bound to ask for certain information, as it desired to ascertain whether the signatures of all three delegates were necessary or if each held plenipotentiary powers independently of his colleagues.

Two delegations — those of Switzerland and Sweden — had powers duly signed by the Head of the State, bu t nothing was said regarding the signatory powers of the delegates. Two other delegations — those of Hungary and Bulgaria — had powers signed not by the Head

Greece,Poland,Roumania,Spain.

— 14 —

of the S tate bu t by the Minister for Foreign Affairs. If the confirmation of the Head of the S tate could not arrive before the end of the Conference, the Credentials Committee proposed th a t it should be accepted if sent by telegram.

Lastly, the Austrian delegation and the delegation of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes had merely presented letters from their respective Legations a t Paris. These delegations had, however, asked their Governments to send them regular powers w ithout delay.

M. H a a s stated th a t certain practical administrative difficulties had arisen which had led to telegraphic correspondence between the Secretariat of the League and the Moscow Govern­m ent regarding the representation of the U. S. S. R. The Secretariat had just received a telegram from M. Litvinoff stating tha t the Soviet delegation had now left for Paris. It would probably be able to a ttend the Conference on November 23rd. As no decision would have been taken a t the meetings held before that date, the m atter was thus settled.

The Conference took note of the report by the Chairman of the Credentials Committee, and requested the delegations concerned to take the necessary steps to regularise their position and to give the Committee the necessary information.

Exam ination of the Draft Convention (see Annex 1).

Preamble.

Mr. B a l d w i n (British Empire) desired to propose an interpretation of the Preamble and of Article 1 of the Convention which would perhaps best be placed in the Protocol of Signa­ture. He referred to the case of certain sea-going vessels which also sailed on inland watet- ways — vessels, for example, which s ta r t from England and sail up the Seine to Rouen or Paris, or up the Rhine to Cologne or the Danube to Braila. I t seemed to him th a t the present text did not entirely safeguard their position. The Conference would have to decide whether the necessary interpretation should be embodied in the Convention or placed in the Protocol of Signature. According to the Convention, inland navigation craft having tonnage-measure- m ent certificates would be entitled to exemption from re-measurement a t frontiers, but it would be very unfortunate if vessels which were also sea-going vessels and were not subject to re-measurement (because their certificate based on their registered tonnage would be accepted) should encounter fresh difficulties in the application of the principles of the Convention.

M. V i l f a n (Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes) stated that, if the point with which Mr. Baldwin was concerned was the levying of charges, he had provided for th a t in his amend­m ent to the Preamble (see Annex 1 a). He thought it would be difficult to deal with the ques­tion of levying charges in the Preamble itself, as the Convention only referred to tonnage measurement. On the other hand, it was obviously very difficult not to be conscious of all the reasons for which tonnage measurement was carried out and not to a ttem pt to satisfy them. He himself had excluded sea-going vessels from the Preamble and had preferred to define the geographical area to which the Convention applied.

The Ch a i r m a n asked whether Mr. Baldwin’s point might be stated as follows : If a sea­going vessel which has been measured in registered tons sails on an inland waterway, its tonnage certificate should be regarded as valid.

Mr. B a l d w i n (British Empire) assented.

M. R o s s e t t i (Italy) agreed th a t the delegation of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes had amended the Preamble in accordance with the views expressed a t the previous discussion, b u t he liked the amendments even less than the original text, which merely expressed a vague desire to promote international communications. The Serb-Croat-Slovene amendment went much further and contained a positive desideratum, and the Italian delegation could not accept it.

M. Silvain D r e y f u s (France) believed th a t M. Rossetti felt certain misgivings regarding the sta tem ent in the Preamble th a t the contracting States were desirous of promoting inter­national communications. Possibly he was thinking of the case of a State which did not so desire, and was afraid t h a t , by signing the instrument, he would be committing the country which he represented to the development of its international communications. There could be no question, however, of any such commitment ; w hat was m eant was simply th a t ce r ta in international communications were a t present hampered by the re-measurement of vessels a t frontiers, and all th a t was proposed was the removal of this inconvenience. In order to dispel any anxiety on that point, the speaker proposed an amendment (see Annex la ).

M. R o s s e t t i (Italy) declared himself fully satisfied with this wording.

M. P o p e s c o (Roumania) read the following statement :

“ The question has been raised how far the Draft Convention for the Tonnage Measure­ment of Vessels employed in Inland Navigation bears a relationship to or, rather, exercises an influence upon the principles laid down in the various international Conventions on Inter­national Rivers.

— 15 —

“ In the Peace Treaties tem porary regimes were provided for rivers which were declared international, pending the conclusion of a general convention by a general conference of all States.

“ This General Convention on Navigable Waterways of International Concern was drawn up by the Barcelona Conference. I t has, I think, been ratified by nearly all European States.

“ According to the treaties, no other convention may contain different general principles from those adopted a t Barcelona.

“ I shall therefore deal very briefly with the question whether our Convention on the Tonnage Measurement of Vessels employed in Inland Navigation contains principles which are contrary to those of the General Convention of Barcelona or which affect them in any way .

“ I helped to prepare th a t Convention and also th a t of the Danube, as well as the clauses of the treaties relating to international rivers, and I venture to say th a t the principles of our Convention not only do not destroy any of those laid down in the General Convention but, since they gran t wider facilities for navigation, are fully in harmony with the fundamental principles and the spirit of th a t great World Conference.

“ W hat does our Preamble say ? I t says th a t the contracting States, being desirous of promoting international communications—th a t is to say, pursuing the same object as the Barcelona Conference — propose to remove the difficulty of re-measurement a t frontier sand to establish the reciprocal recognition of the tonnage measurements carried out by any contract­ing State in accordance with one or more systems which are accepted as satisfactory or as being mutually equivalent.

“ The Barcelona Convention does not prescribe any increased facilities for navigation i it states what they are and approves them.

“ To abolish compulsory re-measurement a t frontiers would be tan tam ount to granting greater facilities for navigation than those which the Barcelona Convention provides for com­munications on waterways of international concern.

“ The question of the recognition of an official tonnage measurement in international navigation only arises in connection with charges on navigation, or for services rendered in ports, etc., th a t is to say, in all cases where such charges are allowed under the various inter­national conventions.

“ In all other cases •— as, for example, for vessels in transit — no such obligation is pro­vided in our Convention, and navigation will manifestly be carried out in accordance with the principles of the General Convention on Freedom of Communications.

“ Mention has been made of River Commissions which levy charges on navigation, such as, for example, the European Commission, a t the Mouths of the Danube, the International Commission a t the Iron Gates, etc. All these River Commissions, however, as well as all the contracting States, m ay grant this facility for navigation (since their statutes do not prevent it) by recognising the tonnage certificates issued by the contracting States under the terms of our Convention.

“ There is no reason why such a facility should not be granted to navigation until the time comes — as I hope it will — when these charges will be abolished. It is impossible to conceive of navigation as free and unrestricted if it has to be paid for.

“ The Barcelona Convention, like the other international conventions, allows such charges on navigation, bu t regards them as exceptions which will eventually disappear and make navigation genuinely free.

“ In conclusion, I personally see no difficulty in adopting the Preamble as it stands, since it is clear th a t navigation is to be afforded wider facilities which are not contrary either to the Barcelona Convention or to the other international conventions on navigable waterways. ”

Continuing, M. Popesco stated tha t, as regards sea-going vessels also employed in inland navigation, it was only logical tha t , in addition to the certificate in registered tons, which was valid a t sea, they should possess a second certificate in metric tons for inland navigation. Roumanian vessels of this class carried these two certificates, one in metric and the other in registered tons. For some years there had been confusion in Roumanian river ports in regard to the registration of tonnage for statistical purposes ; registered tons were mistaken for metric tons and vice versa. This confusion led to quite appreciable statistical errors, and steps had accordingly been taken to recommend vessels employed in both maritime and inland naviga­tion to have two scales, one giving the metric tonnage of the vessel and the other the registered tonnage.

M. v a n S l o o t e n (Netherlands) supported M. Popesco’s statement.The present tex t was an excellent one and was in accordance not only with the spirit of

the Barcelona Convention bu t also with th a t of the Convention concluded in 1898 between Belgium, France, Germany and the Netherlands. He read the Preamble of th a t Convention. The countries which signed the 1898 Convention were in a somewhat peculiar position. Being bound by a previous agreement, they would find it difficult to accept the new Convention if it conflicted with the Brussels Convention and if any of their number did not adhere to the new Convention. The Netherlands was in no way opposed to a European agreement, but it should be remembered th a t it was not greatly interested in the conclusion of such an agreement. Dutch river and canal craft regularly entered Germany and Belgium, and sometimes France,

— 16 —

bu t they rarely went as far as Switzerland and never to Finland or Greece. The interests of the Netherlands were fully protected by the Brussels Convention.

The speaker declared himself satisfied with the 1898 Convention, which had never given rise to the slightest difficulty in application, and he would have very great hesitation in signin» a Convention which might run counter to the principles laid down in 1898.

M. H o s t i e (Central Commission for Rhine Navigation) pointed out th a t M. Vilfan in his amendment, and M. Popesco, in his speech, had referred to the powers of International River Commissions. That was a particularly intricate question and he thought it should be reserved for later consideration.

M. D a n t c h o f f (Bulgaria) stated th a t he considered the wording of the Preamble entirely satisfactory and in full accord with the spirit of the Barcelona Convention. Bulgaria accepted the Convention on Tonnage Measurement and the Annex to th a t Convention. He would add th a t Bulgaria was prepared once more to support any efforts to unify as far as possible all police and port regulations, all systems oHevying port charges, and all forms and documents issued by the various port authorities, in order to provide facilities for masters of vessels and to enable the ports of international rivers to become what they ought to be — international stations.

M. B r u n e t (Belgium) was quite willing to accept the wording proposed by M. Silvain Dreyfus, and added th a t he could also accept the wording used in the Preamble to the Conven­tion of 1898 recommended by M. van Slooten, should the Conference prefer th a t text.

M. R o s s e t t i (Italy) accepted the French delegation’s proposal, because it cleared up cef tain points which had given rise to anxiety, while a t the same time it did not change tic essentials of the present wording. He could not see how this tex t conflicted with the principles of the Convention of 1898 or the Barcelona Convention. He therefore thought i t needless to prolong the discussiomsimply for the purpose of enunciating the same principles in different and less satisfactory terms.

M. M ü l l e r (Czechoslovakia) stated th a t he accepted the tex t proposed by M. Silvain Dreyfus subject to final readjustment by the Drafting Committee.

M. V i l f a n (Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes) said th a t he did not insist that the questions raised by Mr. Baldwin and himself should be solved in the Preamble, bu t he begged the Conference to bear them in mind. He accepted M. Silvain Dreyfus’ text. As regards the proposal to give a dual certificate to sea-going vessels which also sailed on inland water­ways, he knew of certain countries in which river craft were provided with two certificates when they went down to the mouths of rivers on which a certificate based on registered ton­nage was required, as, for example, the mouths of the Danube. He did not, however, know of any sea-going vessels carrying an official tonnage certificate expressed in metric tons.

M. P o p e s c o (Roumania) stated tha t he was satisfied with M. Silvain Dreyfus’ formula.

The amended text submitted by M . Silvain Dreyfus was adopted at the first reading, it beinij understood that it would be completed if necessary in accordance with the observations submitted by Mr. Baldwin and M . Vilfan.

Articles 1 and 2.

The C h a i r m a n read the draft amendment to these articles submitted by M. V ilfan

(see Annexes 16 and 1 c).

M. B r u n e t (Belgium) stated th a t Article 1 of the draft prepared by the Sub-Committee for Inland Navigation was the fundamental provision of the Convention.

I t was important, therefore, to weigh all its terms very carefully.The words “ to the exclusion of all others ”, which had been inserted in Article 1, would

have the effect of preventing two signatory States of the Convention from agreeing to recognise in relations between themselves certificates which did not comply with the terms of the agreement to be concluded.

He added th a t there was no restriction of this kind in the Convention concluded by thefour countries in 1898 ; th a t agreement, which simply provided for the recognition of tonnagecertificates based on the system prescribed in the Convention itself, would certainly not have prevented such a supplementary arrangement between France and Belgium, for example,in regard to any specific type of vessel.

M. V i l f a n (Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes) thought th a t Article 1 should be amended because, according to information he had obtained, the differences between the results of the various methods of measuring tonnage were fairly considerable, in some cases amounting to as much as 3 per cent, which, for a vessel of 900 tons, for example, would represent an error of about 30 tons. He thought that, if they could agree upon a provision to the effect th a t vessels should carry the various certificates prescribed by the countries to which they belong and according to the tonnage-measurement regulations in force in the different countries in which they traded, they would be making very considerable progress, more espe­cially as it was anticipated th a t the Convention would merely mark an intermediate stage leading up to the ultimate standardisation of the methods of tonnage measurement.

— 17 —

Mr. B a l d w i n (British Empire) instanced t h e case of a French vessel and a German vessel in Belgian waters. France and B e lg iu m were bound by a special Convention, whereas the Ger­man vessel would come under the present Convention. W hat, in practice, would be the differ­ence between the effect of the two systems as regards the assessment of charges ?

M. B r u n e t (Belgium) replied that, if two States agreed to recognise each other’s tonnage ce rt if ica tes , they did so because they considered the effects identical. This would also apply t0 certificates issued in Germany a n d Belgium on the basis of the General Convention, and the charges levied would be on precisely the same basis in both cases.

M. Silvain D r e y f u s (France) observed th a t M. Brunet had objected very strongly to keep­ing the words “ to the exclusion of all others ” . He pointed out th a t the Sub-Committee , for Inland Navigation had unanimously decided to introduce these words in Article 1. Its intention had been to approach as nearly as possible to the standardisation of methods of tonnage measurement. The present amendments, however, would have precisely the opposite effect. If they contemplated the adoption of certificates drawn up in conformity with the regulations in force in the countries for which a vessel was bound, the vessel might have to obtain a whole series of tonnage-measurement certificates, a procedure which would entirely frustrate the Conference’s a t tem p t to bring about unification.

M. v a n S l o o t e n (Netherlands) supported M. Silvain Dreyfus’ statement. He thought that the Serb-Croat-Slovene amendment would modify the principle a t present in force and would be extremely unfair. If one State measured tonnage by displacement and another, with which it traded, used the system of horizontal planes, the results obtained would obviously be very different. This inequality would not only be harmful to inland shipping interests b u t would also hinder the establishment of a common private law on inland navigation.

M. M ü l l e r (Czechoslovakia) also agreed with what M. Silvain Dreyfus had said.

M. P o p e s c o (Roumania) confirmed M. Silvain Dreyfus’ sta tem ent th a t the aim of the Advisory Committee’s work was the unification of tonnage measurement for river craft.If they accepted the tex t proposed by the Serb-Croat-Slovene delegate they would be commit­ting themselves to the application of other systems than the three a t present in force and would thereby be abandoning any a ttem pt to achieve unification. He was therefore entirely opposed to the Serb-Croat-Slovene amendment.

M. V i l f a n (Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes) observed tha t, in point of fact, Article 2, amended as he had proposed, contained a carefully restricted list of the methods provisionally recognised. Moreover, his amendm ent guaranteed absolute equality of treat­ment.

He was sure th a t most of the objections raised by his amendments were due to the fact that the la tter had not been distributed until the Conference had met, so tha t the various delegations had not had time to examine them.

His Government, like other Governments, desired to standardise methods of measuring tonnage. That being so, M. Vilfan wished to point out th a t to proclaim three systems to be equivalent which might result in such variations as he had mentioned would be to admit tha t on the same river one part of navigation m ight in certain respects be favoured as compared with another part which, being measured by another system giving a more exact result, might have a permanently higher tonnage figure.

M. D o b i c e v i c i u s (Lithuania) thought th a t the Serb-Croat-Slovene amendment would not merely render unification impossible b u t would so complicate the position th a t unification could not be achieved even a t the end of a time-limit.

The obligation to provide a vessel with several different certificates would involve compli­cations which it was impossible to foresee.

M. R o s s e t t i (Italy) agreed with the arguments p u t f o r w a r d b y the French d e l e g a t e .

M. Silvain D r e y f u s (France) observed th a t M. Vilfan had maintained th a t the three systems gave different results ; the logical inference then was tha t they should be superseded by a single system. The principle of according provisional recognition to the three systems of tonnage measurement had been criticised bu t this was only a tem porary arrangement which in no way affected their determination to advance towards ultimate unification. They had simply recognised th a t it would be wise to go slowly and fix a period of ten years in order to have time to make the necessary experiments. The present draft, therefore, was the least imperfect which it had appeared practically possible to draw' up. If the Conference thought that they could go further and th a t a single system was preferable, all the members of the Sub-Committee for Inland Navigation would emphatically agree.

M. D a n t c h o f f (Bulgaria) thought th a t the essential difference between the draft Convention and the te x t proposed by the Serb-Croat-Slovene delegation was th a t the latter destroyed any possibility of standardisation and rendered the Convention practically nugatory. He fully endorsed w hat M. Silvain Dreyfus had said.

— 18 —

Mr. B a l d w i n (British Empire) said th a t neither text satisfied him, since neither fulfill^ the prescribed condition, namely, the unification of systems of tonnage measurement, n seemed to him inconceivable th a t technical experts could not, agree upon any single system He therefore proposed th a t the Conference should ask them to come to an agreement and so mitigate the present differences and achieve the necessary measure of unification without d e la y .

M. F r a n o u x (Germany) agreed ; on condition, however, th a t Germany should still be entitled to apply and, if necessary, extend the Elbe system in her Own territory, and that the certificates issued under th a t system should be recognised by the Contracting States. He also pointed out the necessity of making it clear th a t the adoption of a new system of tonnage measurement o n the Rhine did not involve the re-measurement of vessels.

M. B o u c k a e r t (Belgium) also thought th a t M. Vilfan’s tex t would have the effect of pre­venting the unification of methods of tonnage measurement. Apart from the difficulties which would result from the necessity of giving several certificates to one vessel, there was also the practical difficulty of issuing certificates in one country in accordance with a method in force in another. Such a procedure would give rise to errors much more serious than those they were endeavouring to avoid.

The unification which Mr. Baldwin desired had been keenly discussed by the Committee of Experts. The most determined opposition had come from M. Oppermann, the German delegate, who had stated th a t in no case would Germany abandon the Elbe system. After long discussion, the experts had agreed upon a provisional modus vivendi.

M. B o u r g e o i s (France) did not think it was true th a t the experts could not agree upon a single system. The application of the system under discussion would only lead to trifling errors. The greatest difficulty would be th a t the methods applied to certain vessels would not be suitable for vessels of their particular type. In France, the chief consideration was to obtain almost absolute accuracy, because the object of the measurement was to find the weight of the cargo. They had succeeded in doing so within a margin of 1 per cent, that is to say, more accurately than if they had used a weighbridge. I t would be desirable, there­fore, th a t all countries should endeavour as far as possible to adopt this procedure.

M. P o p e s c o (Roumania) entirely agreed with Mr. Baldwin as to the necessity of striving to achieve the unification of tonnage-measurement systems. The experts had not reached agreement because each of them had become accustomed to his own particular system. They had proposed th a t a period of ten years should be allowed within which to determine what was the best system. If the experiments were limited to three systems, they would certainly no t reach unanimity a t the end of th a t period. In case the Conference should decide to main­tain the three systems, he drew attention to his amendm ent (see Annex lc).

M. V i l f a n (Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes) was afraid th a t the experiments with three system- would last much longer than the ten years laid down in the draft Conven­tion. He made formal reservations as regards the adoption of the present tex t of Article 1.

M. M ü l l e r (Czechoslovakia) could only confirm w hat M. Bourgeois had said. The Elbe tonnage system also gave excellent results, because it was applied to types of vessels to which i t was suited. I t was not surprising th a t technical experts in the different countries defended a method which was both simple and gave completely satisfactory^ results. Nevertheless, he was prepared to support any effort to standardise systems of tonnage measurement, and he accepted the preliminary d raft of Article 1 a t the first reading.

M. F r a n o u x (Germany), referring to his previous observations, accepted the first two articles as drafted byr the Sub-Committee for Inland Navigation. He drew attention to the statem ents made by the German representative on th a t Sub-Committee.

M. D o b k e v i c i u s (Lithuania) observed th a t the present difficulty was due to the opposi­tion of those who used the waterways. The only possibility was to reach a compromise. He, too, accepted the present draft.

M. R y n i k e r (Switzerland) also agreed with Mr. Baldwin th a t there m ust be some exact method which would satisfy all the parties concerned. The only means of reaching unification was to adopt scientific methods and take as basis some exact theoretical and scientific for­mula. In this way they could find a method which could be applied to all vessels and couldbe used in every form and for all purposes.

The C h a i r m a n observed th a t the proposal in the Serb-Croat-Slovene amendment to Article 2 was to adopt provisionally, to the exclusion of a l l others, the rules of m e a s u r e m e n t and calculation laid down by the Brussels Convention, the Agreement of 1913 between Germany and Austria-Hungary, the Roumanian Regulations of 1923 and the Moorsom system of tonnage measurement. There were therefore no vital differences between the a m e n d m e n t and the tex t as it stood. The only difference lay in the fact th a t M. Vilfan proposed to adoptthe method in force in the country for which the vessel was bound.

M. B r u n e t (Belgium) supported the arguments just advanced by several delegates in favour of the adoption of a uniform system of tonnage measurement.' He understood th a t the term “ uniform system of tonnage measurement ” implied not th a t al countries would be obliged to apply the same system of tonnage measurement but th a t they would simply be bound to recognise tonnage certificates based on the system prescribed in the Convention. There would thus be a uniform system of tonnage measurement sanctioned by a convention.

In this connection the speaker recalled the observations he had made ea ly in the meeting on the words “ to the exclusion of all others ” in Article 1 of t h e draft Convention. When he asked for the deletion of these words he had also had Article 2 in mind, as he was convinced tha t their omission would facilitate the establishment of a uniform system by the Convention. It might even be asked whether, in order to facilitate the adoption of a uniform system by means of a Convention, it would not be necessary to leave to the Contracting States the "right to conclude among themselves special agreements based on different systems.

In o ther words, all the signatory States would be obliged to recognise certificates based on the system prescribed by the Convention, bu t would also have the right to agree with neighbouring States to recognise certificates based on other systems.

The C h a i r m a n reminded the Conference th a t the Technical Sub-Committee had not succeeded in its previous a ttem pts, bu t he saw no objection to its being asked to decide upon a uniform system.

In illustration of the one particular point on which M. Vilfan’s proposal really differed from the tex t as it stood, the Chairman cited the case of a Finnish vessel proceeding to Belgium. According to the Serb-Croat-Slovene proposal, it would have to have the type of certificate in force in Belgium ; bu t how was th a t possible in practice ?

M. V i l f a n (Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes) replied th a t Article 3 of the draft Convention provided th a t each Contracting State would communicate to the others the regulations which it issued. I t would therefore be easy for States to establish certificates in conformity with these regulations according to the country for which the vessel was bound. Sea-going vessels were adm ittedly provided with several tonnage certificates (national, Suez, Panama). River-going vessels would be in the same position.

M. v a n S l o o t e n (Netherlands) observed th a t th a t was the very point which had been chiefly complained of in regard to maritime transport.

M. V i l f a n (Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes), as an adherent of standardisa­tion, agreed th a t the adoption of a uniform system should be discussed by the Technical Committee.

Mr. B a l d w i n (British Empire) repeated th a t it was inconceivable th a t experienced tech­nicians could not agree upon a uniform system.

The Conference instructed the Technical Committee to consider the question of a scheme of uniform tonnage measurement such as could be recommended for favourable consideration by all the Contracting Parties.

The Conference decided to resume the examination of Articles 1 and 2 of the draft Convention after having received the Technical Committee’s report.

T H IR D (PLENARY) MEETING.

Held on November 23rd, 1925, at 10 a.m.

Senator A. M a h i e u in the Chair.

Present : All those who attended the preceding meeting, with the exception of M. Campus and M. Smith.

Secretariat : M. H aas and M. R o m e i n .

Examination of the Draft Convention (continued).

Article 3.

Article 3 was adopted on the first reading, subject to the further consideration of the amend­ment submitted by M . Vilfan (see Annex Id) , and referred to the Drafting Committee.

Articles 4 and 5.

M. V i l f a n (Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes) asked whether it was necessary to retain the passage in Article 4 which read : “ and which are stated, in the circumstances referred to in Article 5

— 20 —

M. Silvain D r e y f u s (France) pointed out th a t the report of the Sub-Committee for In land Navigation had explained th a t the object of Article 5 was to prevent the principle of mutual recognition of certificates from becoming inoperative as a result of arbitrary rules for re-measure­ment. If the power to require re-measurement was not restricted, the principle of mutual recognition of certificates would be destroyed.

M. R o s s e t t i (Italy) thought th a t they should lay down in Article 5 th a t no Contracting State could require the re-measurement of a vessel which had already been measured by another Contracting State except in case of extensive repairs. It ought, indeed, to be made clear th a t there was no question of asking a State to undertake any international engagements in respect of its own vessels, for such a demand would be wholly inadmissible.

M. B r u n e t (Belgium) and M. M ü l l e r (Czechoslovakia) thought th a t this point should also be brought out in Article 4 so as to make it perfectly clear th a t they were not seeking to lay down rules affecting internal administration.

Mr. B a l d w i n (British Empire) said that, if the Conference thought the rules of the Convention the best which it was possible to devise, there was no practical objection to a Contracting State applying them in its own territory.

M. M ü l l e r (Czechoslovakia) thought th a t the fears expressed with regard to re-measure­m ent of tonnage were perhaps due to a confusion of revision or verification of tonnage with actual re-measurement. In the case of the Elbe regulations, for example, the sole object of revision is to give tonnage-measurement offices an opportunity to check the accuracy of tonnage measurements made by themselves in their own country. Revision is also carried out a t the request of the master of a vessel, and is only followed by re-measurement should some irregularity be brought to light. The speaker did not think th a t Article 5 was inconsistent with the retention of such proposal.

M. Silvain D r e y f u s (France) explained th a t M. Rossetti’s apprehensions were somewhat excessive. Article 5 safeguarded the independence of Governments as regards their own administrative regulations.

M. R o s s e t t i (Italy) said th a t he was satisfied with these explanations.M. V i l f a n (Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes) said th a t under Article 4 a State

might refuse an application for re-measurement if the master of a vessel applied for i t on other grounds than those laid down in Article 5. He moved th a t the tex t of his amendment to that article should be referred to the Technical Committee (see Annex le). In particular, he empha­sised the desirability of inserting a reference to the case of a change in the tonnage of a vessel ; he quoted the example of fixed cement ballast, shipped in a vessel and subsequently removed.

The C h a i r m a n pointed out tha t this suggestion would be tan tam oun t to inserting the case of an alteration in the capacity in addition to the two cases mentioned in Article 5. He proposed to refer M. Vilfan’s amendment to the Drafting Committee.

The Chairman’s proposal was adopted.

M. F r a n o u x (Germany) observed that, in view of the very special situation of Germany, his Government could not renounce its right to apply the Elbe system in its territory. There would accordingly be two systems of tonnage measurement in Germany until a new decision was taken. In these circumstances, he thought tha t it would be best in Article 5 to say “ in the territory ” in place of “ throughout the whole territory ” .

Mr. B a l d w i n (British Empire) argued th a t they should examine the problem on the assumption th a t the object aimed at was a complete unification of the tonnage-measurement systems. The observation which had been made would therefore only apply if it were not found possible to obtain universal assent to a single system.

M. M ü l l e r (Czechoslovakia) asked for a more precise definition of the terms “ extensive repairs ” and “ alterations in dimensions ” . He proposed th a t it should be left to the Tech­nical Committee to clear up any points of this kind in the text.

M. R o s s e t t i (Italy) thought that, in the second sentence of Article 5, the term used should not be “ this re-measurement ” bu t “ re-measurement ” . Otherwise it would be necessary to make i t clear in the first sentence th a t the article was aimed at re-measurement demanded by another State.

•The C h a i r m a n replied th a t the tex t in its present form would in no way hamper any State in its general policy in regard to the re-measurement of its own vessels. He thought that M. Rossetti would be satisfied by an assurance th a t this right would be in no way p r e j u d i c e d .

M. v o n R e n t h e - F i n k ( I n t e r n a t i o n a l E l b e C o m m iss io n ) o b s e r v e d t h a t , u n d e r t h e Elbe s y s t e m , p e r io d i c a l v e r i f i c a t i o n s of t o n n a g e m e a s u r e m e n t w e re c a r r i e d o u t — e v e r y f ive years fo r w o o d e n v e s s e l s a n d e v e r y t e n y e a r s for i ro n v es se ls ; t h e s e v e r i f i c a t i o n s m i g h t g iv e rise — a c c o r d i n g t o t h e e x t e n t of t h e a l t e r a t i o n s a s c e r t a in e d — e i th e r t o e m e n d a t i o n s in t h e official r e c o r d of t h e t o n n a g e m e a s u r e m e n t , i n v o l v i n g t h e i s su e of a n e w t o n n a g e - m e a s u r e m e n t c e r t i f i c a t e , o r t o a r e - m e a s u r e m e n t of t h e vesse l . M. v o n R e n t h e - F i n k t h o u g h t t h a t i t might be of i n t e r e s t t o c o n s id e r w h e t h e r t h e y s h o u ld n o t t a k e t h i s p r o v i s io n i n t o a c c o u n t in d ra f t ing t h e i r t e x t .

M. Silvain D r e y f u s (France) said tha t he understood th a t M. Rossetti was now contem­plating a system of regulations under which his own Government would be entitled to d e m a n d the re-measurement of an Italian vessel which returned to Italy with a certificate w h ich ,

— 2 1 -

th o u g h perfectly in order under the Convention, had been drawn up outside Italian territory. Such a right would am ount to a negation of the Convention and to the abolition of the prin­ciple of mutual recognition, by virtue of which a measurement carried out by a Contracting State possessed the same value as if it had been carried out in the territory of any other Contracting State.

Mr. B a l d w i n (British Empire) said th a t the Convention was solely concerned with tonnage m e a s u r e m e n t and had no connection with the question of nationality. As a fact, many G eneral Conventions contained a provision to the effect th a t each State would apply the C o n v e n t io n to its own nationals.

M. H o s t i e (Central Commission for Rhine Navigation) pointed out that, if they desired the Convention to be applicable to international rivers, they should bear in mind th a t the tonnage-measurement regulations m ust be applicable to all vessels without any distinction, since these regulations extended no t only to the relations between a State and the vessels of other States b u t also to the relations between the first-named State and its own vessels. On the Rhine they had long since succeeded in treating the questions of nationality and tonnage measurement as entirely distinct.

M. M ü l l e r (Czechoslovakia) observed tha t , as regards the Elbe, Germany and Czecho­slovak ia were parties to joint tonnage-measurement regulations which took so little count of n a t i o n a l i t y t h a t it had even happened th a t German vessels got themselves measured in Czechoslovakia when the rates charged were higher in their own country.

M. R o s s e t t i (Italy) said th a t he m ust m aintain his point of view, but would be content to re-open the question a t the second reading if he found it necessary.

M. V i l f a n (Kingdom of t h e Serbs, Croats and Slovenes) said th a t he m ust reserve the views of h is Government as regards relations between a State and its own nationals.

Subject to the above reservations, Articles 4 and 5 were adopted at the first reading.

Article 6 .

M. P o p e s c o (Roumania) said th a t he had moved an amendment (see Annex 1/) with the object of securing the unification of methods of tonnage measurement or, if this was not possible, at least of limiting the number of methods now employed. He would prefer to see Article 6

omitted, so as to ensure th a t this Convention should not introduce the method of measurement by registered tons into inland navigation.

M. V i l f a n (Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes) observed th a t Article 6 had been inserted a t the request of his country’s delegation in the Technical Committee. As regards the substance of the question raised by M. Popesco, he would be unable to agree to the Con­vention if it dealt with other questions than tonnage measurement or, in particular, with the collection of taxes ; he could not, therefore, accept an amendment which would involve an undertaking on behalf of his Government to alter the legislation for the collection of taxes in the ports of his country.

M. M ü l l e r (Czechoslovakia) agreed with M. Popesco and asked what the introduction of the registered ton into the tonnage measurement of vessels used in internal navigation meant. Had all vessels proceeding through a certain country to be measured by this system? Had they perhaps a particular case in view ?

Mr. B a l d w i n (British Empire) questioned whether Article 6 ought really to be included in the Convention ; in his view, th a t article dealt with a subsidiary question and ought to be inserted in the Protocol of Signature.

M. P o p e s c o (Roumania) said th a t he agreed ; in th a t case he would withdraw his amendment.

M. M e z e v i r i s (Greece) said th a t his Government was particularly interested in inland navigation on the Danube, where dues were levied on the basis of registered tonnage ; he wished to know whether the application of the new measure would involve a modification in the rate of the dues payable to the European Commission of the Danube.

Mr. B a l d w i n (British Empire) pointed out tha t , for the moment, the European Com­mission of the Danube had not contemplated the necessity of altering the basis of its dues ; moreover, th a t Commission would not necessarily be a party to this Convention.

M. P o p e s c o (Roumania) observed th a t the collection of dues was only based on registered tonnage in the case of the mixed navigation, i.e., from Braila as far as the mouth.

M. R o s s e t t i ( I t a l y ) s a id t h a t he d id n o t u n d e r s t a n d M. Y i l f a n ’s a p p r e h e n s i o n s ; h e d id not b e l i e v e t h a t t h i s a r t i c l e w o u l d a f f e c t t h e m e t h o d of c o l le c t in g d u e s in a n y w a y w h a t e v e r .

M. Silvain D r e y f u s (France) said th a t the present discussion h a d been originated b y M. Popesco’s proposal to insert the term “ provisional ” in the clauses in question. This term was worthy of consideration ; it was so closely in accord with the views of the Sub-Committee for Inland Navigation th a t the la tter had inserted it in its own report.

M. R o m e i n added th a t the passage in the report in question had reference to Article 15, by the terms of which Article 6 was given a provisional character — since the rules which it laid down were to be limited to a period of ten years. It was perhaps superfluous, therefore, to insert the term “ provisional ” in another place.

— 22 —

M. P o p e s c o ( R o u m a n i a ) r e p l i e d t h a t i t w a s d e s i r a b le t o m a k e t h e a d d i t i o n proposed b e c a u s e i t c o n t e m p l a t e d a m u c h s h o r t e r period, a m o u n t i n g to n o t m o r e t h a n t w o o r t h r e e years!

M. B o u c k a e r t (Belgium) proposed th a t a new paragraph should be added to Article 5

(see Annex le). The acceptance of this amendment would enable Article 6 to be omitted.

M . Bouckaert's amendment was referred to the Drafting Committee together with Article 6 . It was understood that the latter article might be inserted in the Protocol of Signature. The Conference would consider at the second reading whether it was desirable to insert the word “provisional ” ,

Article 7.

M. Z i f f e r e r (Austria) raised a question of principle ; it m ust be clearly understood that the communication of lists would be no more than a simple exchange of certificates, and that the tonnage measurement would be in no sense obligatory.

This interpretation was agreed to.

M. v o n R e n t h e - F i n k (International Elbe Commission) said th a t the system adopted on the Elbe was to send the papers to the office which had carried out the last measurement.

M. M ü l l e r (Czechoslovakia) confirmed this fact and was in favour of the maintenance of this procedure. He also asked th a t the revision offices should be informed a t the same time.

The Ch a i r m a n proposed tha t the Conference should consider the special cases of Germany and Czechoslovakia in connection with the Protocol of Signature.

Subject to the above reservation, Article 7 was adopted at the first reading.

Article 8 .

M. B o u c k a e r t (Belgium) observed th a t when a vessel was destroyed all the identification documents might be lost. He proposed therefore to modify the tex t so as to read :

“ . . . and the tonnage certificate shall, if possible, be returned to th a t office. ”

M. v a n S l o o t e n (Netherlands) supposed t-liat it was understood that, if the competent departm ent was not aware of the vessel having been destroyed, the time-limit of three months would not begin to run and the article wrould remain inoperative.

The Ch a i r m a n r e p l i e d t h a t t h a t would c e r t a i n l y be so.

Article 8 was adopted at the first reading, with the addition proposed by M. Bouckaert.

Articles 9, 10, 11 and 12.

These articles were adopted at the first reading.

Article 13.

This article was adopted at the first reading with the following amendment moved by M. van S l o o t e n : after the words “ to the Members of the League ” add“ and to any State represented a t the present Conference ”.

Articles 14 and 15.

These articles were adopted at the first reading.

Constitution of the Drafting Committee.

The Conference appointed a Drafting Committee, consisting of Mr. B a l d w i n , M. F r a n o u x ,

M. v a n S l o o t e n and M. C h a r g u é r a u d - H a r t m a n n . Members were requested to send any amendments which they wished to have made in the tex t to the Committee thus c o n s t i t u t e d .

— 23 —

FO U RTH (PLENARY) MEETING.

Held on November 25th, 1925, cil 3.30 p.m.

Senator A. M a h i e u in the Chair.

P r e s e n t : A l l t h o s e w h o a t t e n d e d t h e p r e c e d i n g m e e t i n g a n d M. S m i t h .

Secretariat : M. H a a s and M. R o m e i n .

Examination of the T ext of the Annex as adopted by the Technical Committee (seeAnnex 3).

M. B o u c k a e r t (Belgium) observed i hat the new draft opened with the following statement :

“ In the following articles the vessel is assumed to be floating in fresh water. ”

This wording had been adopted to meet the views expressed by certain members of the Committee. The result of the measurement would always be the same, no m atter whether carried out in fresh or in salt water, since allowance was made for the density of the water. But it seemed desirable to show th a t if the measurement was not carried out in fresh water the density of the water would have to be ascertained.

On the motion of M. B r u n e t , the Conference decided that this passage should appear as anote at the bottom of the first page of llie Annex.

Article 1.

M. B o u c k a e r t (Belgium) pointed out th a t this article, as also Articles 3 and 9, containedalternative texts ; the selection of one of these texts would be determined by the Committee’sdecision either, on the one hand, to apply the system of measurement to vessels not used for the transport of merchandise or, on the other hand, to exclude tugs from the scope of the system.

M. v a n D r i e l (Netherlands) observed th a t this alternative had been offered in order to avoid placing the m ajority of the Contracting States under the necessity of measuring the tonnage of tugs, a measure which would be both illogical and very difficult in practice. As M. Gehlhaar had stated in the Technical Committee, tugs were the only vessels in question since vessels employed exclusively for passenger transport rarely crossed the frontiers.

Tugs were also given a privileged position in maritime navigation, the net tonnage of most of them being made equivalent to zero. If they compared a tug towing one or more barges with a steamer carrying the same amount of cargo, it was clear tha t it w'ould not be quite fair to base the measurement of tugs on the maximum quantity of coal which their bunkers could take; were the procedure now proposed adopted, their metric tonnage added to th a t of the barges which they towed would be exactly equivalent to th a t of the steamer. For th a t reason it was the practice in several countries, including the Netherlands, to measure tugs on the basis of their draught. If the Conference considered th a t it was necessary to rate the tonnage at a higher figure than would be obtained by the quantity of coal in the bunkers, they could lay down a greater draught, but, in the speaker’s opinion, it would be illogical to work on a different basis from th a t used for other vessels. Moreover, it was very difficult to measure a vessel with fine lines, as was the case with most tugs, without putting them in a floating or dry dock ; and the smallest fault in the horizontal direction would involve immense errors. These difficulties, which apparently did not exist in France or Roumania owing to the peculiar lines of the hulls of tugs in those countries, would be insurmountable for most States.

There were o ther reasons for proceeding cautiously in drafting Articles 3 and 9 : they must remember th a t the system of registered tonnage adopted in maritime navigation was open to the grave objection tha t it exercised a disastrous influence on shipbuilding ; the same thing would happen in regard to tugs : they would be built with small holds in order th a t it might be claimed th a t they were also designed for the transport of goods.

In conclusion, M. van Driel thought th a t it would be better to legislate for tugs, and pro­posed th a t a small sub-committee should be appointed to work out a satisfactory plan as soon as possible.

The C h a i r m a n observed th a t there was a question of principle which would have to be decided first ; Did the Conference intend to deal with tugs ?

Mr. B a l d w i n (British Empire) said th a t the only way of measuring tugs was to go by, the plan of the vessel. The inclusion of tugs in the Convention would exercise an unfortunate influence on their construction.

M. v a n S l o o t e n (Netherlands) thought tha t , on the contrary, the omission of tugs would be unfortunate.

M. Silvain D r e y f u s (France) agreed with the last speaker ; if they said nothing about tugs, these vessels would be measured by unsatisfactory methods ; it was essential th a t they should be measured for purposes of statistics and charges. Moreover, the question of their measurement undoubtedly came within the scope of the Convention.

— 24 —

M. B o u c k a e r t (Belgium) said th a t personally it was a m atter of indifference to him which system was selected, because he intended to tax tugs, and would do so on the basis of their horse-power. The Technical Committee was prepared to draft a tex t which would take due account of the objections just raised.

It was decided that the Technical Committee should re-draft Articles 1, 3 and 9 in such a m anner as to bring the tonnage measurement of tugs within the Convention.

Article 2.

M . B o u c k a e r t (Belgium) said tha t the tex t had only been modified so as to make it clear th a t it was a question of decimal fractions of tons.

Article 2 was adopted.Article 4.

M. B o u c k a e r t (Belgium) said th a t the Technical Committee had drafted this article in order to meet the desire expressed by the Conference for a unification of the methods of tonnage measurement.

The C h a i r m a n congratulated the Technical Committee of the Conference on the success

which had attended its efforts.

Article 4 was adopted.

It was agreed that the following proposal by M. P o p e s c o should be reconsidered when they came to examine the. Protocol of Signature : “ I t is understood th a t during a period of five years, reckoned from the coming into force of the present Convention, certificates issued on the basis of other methods of calculation, in conformity with regulations in force, shall be valid and shall be mutually recognised by the Contracting States ” .

Article 5.

M. B o u c k a e r t (Belgium) said th a t the following alterations had been made :

Second paragraph : They had made it clear th a t it was the length of the hull (excluding the boom, which had to be considered.

Instead of saying : “ not more than 90 metres long ”, they had made the tex t read : “ exceeding 40 metres ”.

They had laid down th a t the scales m ust be at least six in number (for instance, the incli­nation of certain vessels equipped with engines might make it necessary to place the scale aft).

Fifth paragraph : They had laid down th a t there must be a special graduation every 10 centimetres and th a t the zero must be taken either as the level of the light-load line or the level of the keelson of the vessel to the right of each scale.

Article 5 was adopted.Article 6 .

M. B o u c k a e r t (Belgium) declared tha t the only alteration they had made was to add the words “ nor the movable ballast

Article 6 was adopted.Article 7 .

On the motion of M. R o s s e t t i (Italy), i t was decided t h a t the Secretariat should obta in a copy of the table giving the distinctive letters of countries as adopted for motor vehicles in order tha t, if possible, the same lettering might be adopted for vessels engaged in inland navigation.

Subject to this reservation, Article 1 and the table annexed were adopted.

Article 8 .

M. B o u c k a e r t (Belgium) said th a t the only alteration made had been to make it clear th a t the lower edge of the marks must indicate the level of maximum draught.

M. R o s s e t t i (Italy) moved to add, in sub-head 1 of this article, after the words “ distin­guishing letters ”, the words “ or distinguishing numbers ”, because in Italy the offices were described by numbers.

The C h a i r m a n said th a t in tha t case they would also have to say in Article 7 th a t th e office was described by special letters or by special numbers.

Article 8 was adopted.Article 9.

M. B o u c k a e r t (Belgium) said that the' Committee could proceed forthwith to examine the first eight paragraphs of Article 9 because there was no difference of opinion except on the n in th paragraph. He gave particulars regarding the minor modifications which th e Drafting Committee had made in the original text,

The first eight paragraphs of Article 9 were approved.

— 25 —

Article 10.

M. Silvain D r e y f u s (France) said tha t , according to Article 10, in case of re-measurement the old inscriptions, marks and, where necessary, tonnage plates and scales had to be removed. There were two ways of removing these marks : they could be effaced so as to make it impossible to decipher the old marks ; or they might be obliterated, as is done to postage stamps, so th a t the former marks, though cancelled from a tonnage-measurement point of view, would still rem ain visible. He would like to quote one case in which the latter method would be preferable.

A French Law of Ju ly 5th, 1917, introduced the system of “ fluvial mortgages ” , Under this system it was required, in order to have the best possible security, th a t the vessel should be endowed with a “ civil status ” , which it would retain throughout all its vicissitudes. This was the registration of the vessel. In France, the marks served both as a means of registering the vessel and of recording all its successive certificates of tonnage measurement ; for this reason these marks always retained their value, because they were the means of establishing the permanent civil status of the vessel. If they now agreed th a t these marks might be removed during a voyage outside the country, for the sake of a mere re-measurement formality, they would be seriously compromising the interests of persons who had taken mortgages on vessels under the Law of Ju ly 5th, 1917. By virtue of an additional Convention in 1908, France had induced the o ther Contracting Parties to the Agreement of 1898 to agree th a t these original registration marks should be preserved when a vessel was re-measured abroad.

The representative of France had accordingly prepared a draft addendum to the Con­vention. I t would be seen th a t this addendum did not seek to prevent the cancellation of old marks and merely dealt with the method in which this was to be done (see Annex 4a).

M. v a n S l o o t e n (Netherlands) observed th a t the Sub-Committee on Inland Navigation had definitely decided not to touch the question of registration ; bu t the French delegate’s proposal distinctly raised th a t question. In the Convention of 1898, there were certain clauses which might be taken as covering no t only tonnage measurement bu t registration in some form, and certain misunderstandings arose, notably between Germany and France, as to the con­struction to be placed on these articles. They m ust consider whether the Conference was authorised to discuss a question of registration. If France were to adhere to the Convention, there would ahvays be the danger th a t the tonnage-measurement marks which were used in th a t country for internal traffic might be done away with. The question would then become a domestic m atter for France to deal with ; she would either have to modify her Law of 1917 or to expedite the conclusion of the proposed Convention in regard to registration.

M. Silvain D r e y f u s (France) thought th a t the question could not be described as one of internal legislation since it concerned vessels which might undertake voyages abroad.

It was clear th a t the question of registration could not be dealt with in the present Con­vention ; care had even been taken, in the draft prepared by the Sub-Committee on Inland Navigation, to avoid using the word. He had alluded to the question solely to explain his reasons for bringing forward the draft addendum. When M. van Slooten had spoken of registration in connection with tugs, no one had suggested tha t he intended to introduce the question of registration into the Convention. W hat the French delegation desired was th a t the present Convention, which dealt with tonnage measurement, should not embarrass a State in regard to m atters of a different nature from those dealt with by the Conference. The effect of his tex t would be th a t States need merely cancel the old marks without completely effacing them, bu t it contained nothing affecting the relations between States in regard to registration.

M. B o u c k a e r t (Belgium) and M. V i l f a n (Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes) supported M. Dreyfus’ proposal, since the operation asked for by France called for no sacrifice on the part of the Contracting States.

M. v a n S l o o t e n (Netherlands) observed th a t the difference between M. Dreyfus and himself amounted to this : M. Dreyfus thought th a t it was impossible for France to modify her legislation regarding fluvial mortgages ; personally, he considered th a t , in adopting the same marks for tonnage measurement and for registration, the French legislation was illogical.

The C h a i r m a n said th a t the French delegate’s proposal would be circulated. It might, if adopted, be inserted in the Protocol of Signature.

Article 10 was adopted.

Article 11.Article 11 was adopted.

Articles 1, 3 and 9.

The C h a i r m a n stated th a t the Conference would discuss Articles 1 and 3 and paragraph 9 of Article 9 after these articles had been further considered by the Technical Committee.

— 26 —

Exam ination of the Draft Convention as adopted by the Drafting Committee (seeAnnex 4).

Preamble.

Mr. B a l d w i n (British Empire.) pointed out th a t the Convention was based on the principleo a unified system of tonnage measurement, and therefore it would be better to say so in thePreamble. He proposed to alter the tex t to read as follows :

“ . . . will be greatly improved by the unification of the system of tonnage measurement, in conformity with certain general principles, which are intended to ensure the reciprocal recognition of tonnage-measurement certificates, agree to the following provisions. ”

Mr. Baldwin added th a t a re-measurement would not necessarily be effected at the frontiers, and th a t the wording of the Preamble would have to be modified as regards th a t point.

M. Silvain D r e y f u s (France) explained th a t the intention of the authors of the draf t had been to show th a t vessels m ust not be re-measured in another country.

M. B r u n e t (Belgium) proposed the following wording :“ . . . improved by the adoption of a uniform system of tonnage measurement

which would have the effect of abolishing any form of compulsory re-measurement a t the frontiers. ”

The C h a i r m a n observed th a t they should say “ facilitate the abolition of ” instead of“ have the effect of abolishing ”, because the Conference was bound to sanction measures of aprovisional character. They might omit the words “ a t the frontiers

M. v a n S l o o t e n (Netherlands) pointed out th a t re-measurement was not to be abolished. There were certain cases in which re-measurement was contemplated.

M. R o s s e t t i (Italy) said tha t the Italian delegation could not accept any wording which did not make it perfectly clear th a t the Convention was only concerned with international navigation. He could not agree to the omission proposed by the Chairman.

The Ch a i r m a n pointed out th a t the Preamble only referred to international communications.

M. B o u r g e o i s (France) proposed to simplify the Preamble by making it read :“ . . . with a view to promoting international communication by inland

navigation, agree to the following provisions which are intended . . . ”, etc.

The Ch a i r m a n observed th a t there were objections to making a particular reference to such-and-such provision of the Convention ; and if they tried to insert a compendium of all the provisions of the Convention there wrould always be a danger of omitting some of them,

M. R o s s e t t i (Italy) said, in reply to a question by Mr. B a l d w i n , tha t, after the Chairman’s explanations, he would not press for the retention of the words “ a t the frontiers ” ,

The C h a i r m a n suggested th a t they should refer the Preamble to the Drafting Committee, which would give due consideration to the various observations they had heard. He added th a t the Preamble could in no way affect the working of the Convention.

Article 1.This article was adopted.

Article 2 ( former Article 3).

M. R o s s e t t i (Italy) proposed to extend the time-limit allowed for the issue of the neces­sary regulations from six months to one year.

M. R o m e i n pointed out tha t the time-limit was “ within six months of the coming into force ” . The time at which the Convention would come into force was laid down, for each State, as three months after the deposit of the minutes of ratification. Each State wrould be free to raiify the Convention a t such a date as would allow of the issue of the necessary regula­tions within the prescribed time-limit.

M. R o s s e t t i (Italy) thought tha t the time allowed would be too short for the Inter­national River Commissions. The Convention would come into force independently of them: they only sat twice a year. I t would be difficult for them to modify the existing regulations during a single session.

M. V i l f a n (Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes) pointed out to the Italian delegate th a t Article 2 only referred to the Contracting States. They need not concern themselves a t this stage with the International Commissions.

M. R o s s e t t i (Italy) merely desired tha t his observations should b e inserted in t h e Minutes.He also desired to point out th a t certain States which did not engage in international

navigation were, nevertheless, entitled to adhere to the Convention. Were they expected to issue executive regulations ?

Mr. B a l d w i n (British Empire) moved to add the words : “ if necessary ” after the words “ the Contracting States undertake

— 27 —

M. R o m e i n explained th a t the regulations would perhaps not b e put in force immediately ; but no one could affirm positively th a t vessels of another State would not some day engage in navigation in the territory of the State in question. When th a t came to pass it would b e essentia l th a t the regulations should be in existence. Moreover, it might happen th a t certain States would engage in international navigation, although such navigation need not necessarily be carried on in their own territory.

M. R o s s e t t i (Italy) thought that, from an international point of view, the undertaking to put the Convention in force was sufficient ; the question of executive regulations was a matter of domestic policy.

M. P o p e s c o (Roumania) thought th a t a time-limit of six months was too short, parti­cularly for States which had international waterways of great length. He supported the Italian delegate’s proposal to extend the time-limit to one year.

M. B r u n e t (Belgium) regretted th a t the criticisms of the British and Italian delegates had resulted in weakening Article 2. He thought th a t something might be inserted in the Protocol of Signature.

Mr. B a l d w i n (British Empire) said th a t he would accept any proposal which would not compel a S tate to draw up useless and inapplicable regulations.

M. B r u n e t ’s suggestion was adopted.

The C h a i r m a n pointed out to M. Popesco tha t, if the time-limit was fixed a t nine months, this would really be tan tam oun t to one year if they included the ninety days after the deposit of the minutes of ratification.

It was decided to fix a time-limit of nine months.

Article 3.Article 3 was adopted.

Article 4 (former Article h).

M. R o s s e t t i (Italy) observed th a t this article reaffirmed the principle to which he had already objected. He would not propose an amendment, bu t he wished to have it stated in the Minutes th a t this provision in no way affected the relations between a State and its own vessels or river craft no t engaged in international navigation.

The Conference accepted this interpretation.The German delegation’s am endm ent was then read (Annexe 4a).M. V i l f a n (Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes) asked whether the term “ a revi­

sion of the measurement ” which the Drafting Committee had used, had the same meaning as “ re-measurement ”.

M. R o m e i n answered th a t the expression used covered what was called in the Elbe system the “ Eichprüfung ” and the “ Neu-Eichung ”. They must avoid giving so precise an interpretation of the article on re-measurement tha t a State would be able to contend that, though it was not entitled to re-measure a vessel, it was always entitled to revise the measurement.

M. M ü l l e r (Czechoslovakia) again mentioned th a t it was necessary to distinguish revision or verification of tonnage measurement from re-measurement. He said th a t in his country, under existing regulations, the revision authorities were a t any time entitled to verify a tonnage- measurement certificate, bu t th a t did not involve the re-measurement of the vessel.

The C h a i r m a n said th a t if Czechoslovakia adopted the Convention she would have to renounce th a t right.

M. V i l f a n (Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes) thought th a t the expressions used in the Elbe regulations were very precise. If they objected to the system of verifying tonnage measurement which was in force on the Elbe, they would be depriving traders of a valuable privilege. They m ust not regard the verification of measurements as equivalent to re-measurement, bu t they m ust draw a distinction between the two.

M. M ü l l e r (Czechoslovakia) said th a t he could not waive this right of verification, which, as M. Vilfan had rightly said, was also carried out in the interests of the shipowners. He offered a concrete illustration. Suppose th a t the master of a vessel shifted the position of the tonnage marks or altered the measuring scales, the authorities would be entitled to suspect fraud and to verify the measurement.

The C h a i r m a n e x p l a i n e d t h a t w h a t t h e y w is h e d to p r e v e n t w a s n o t t h e v e r i f i c a t i o n of m e a s u r e m e n t s b u t t h e i r r e v i s io n , fo r r e a s o n s n o t b a s e d o n a n y g e n e r a l ru le , b u t d e p e n d e n t on t h e a r b i t r a r y j u d g m e n t of off ic ia ls .

M. Silvain D r e y f u s (France), referring to the explanation given b y M. Romein, suggested that it might avoid confusion if they said “ either re-measurement or verification of measurement

M. D o r k e v i c i u s (Lithuania) considered tha t the verification of measurements was the sovereign right of the State into whose territory the vessel came. This right must be preserved intact, bu t the State which insisted on such verification could not make any charge for it. It was only in case of re-measurement th a t the shipowner was liable. For the rest, he did not consider th a t a distinction should be drawn between “ revision of measurement ” and “ re-measurement ”,

— 28 —

M. R o m e i n observed th a t i t was not stated anywhere t h a t verification of measurement would be free of charge. The Convention made no reference to charges.

M. M ü l l e r (Czechoslovakia) explained, in regard to the Elbe system, th a t measure­ments might be revised on various grounds :

(1) In order to verify the measurement ;(2) With a view to ascertaining whether the marks had been changed ;(3) At the request of the owner, who bore the expenses.

The above operations were only carried out if they appeared necessary, b u t they were not compulsory.

Mr. B a l d w i n (British Empire) asked whether there was not a certain contradiction between the ideas of verification by a tonnage-measurement office and the reciprocal recogni­tion of tonnage-measurement certificates. To m eet the wishes of the German delegation, Mr. Baldwin proposed the following wording :

“ If a Contracting State thinks it necessary to check a t its own expense the particulars given in the certificate, this operation, so far as laden vessels are con­cerned, shall not cover more than the external dimensions of the vessel. ”

M. M ü l l e r (Czechoslovakia) explained th a t the question under discussion was solely th a t of the verification carried out by tonnage-measurement offices in the same country, either a t the suggestion of the revision office itself, or when the m aster of a vessel complained th a t the boat had not been properly measured. A ship could not be deprived of this method of correction.

The C h a i r m a n said th a t it appeared th a t the tex t might read as follows : “ No Contracting S tate may demand re-measurement

This wording was adopted.The C h a i r m a n added th a t a clause would be inserted — either after Article 4 o r in the

Protocol of Signature — to meet the point aimed a t b y the German amendment, in the words proposed by Mr. Baldwin.

M. V i l f a n (Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes) asked why the Drafting Committee had struck out the last words of the original tex t :

“ general administrative regulations applicable throughout the whole territory oj Hie said Stqte to vessels measured”.

T h e C h a i r m a n replied tha t the wrords in question were superfluous because there were general administrative regulations in every State.

M. B r u n e t (Belgium) suggested the following wording with a view to greater clearness :

“ In accordance with administrative regulations which are generally applicable. ”

M. C h a r g u é r a u d - H a r t m a n n (International Oder Commission) pointed out th a t the idea of the supporters of this clause had been th a t the Contracting States should only be entitled to demand re-measurement in case of extensive repairs or alterations having been carried out, or if the certificate was more than ten years old ; bu t th a t in any case it was necessary th a t the obligation to require re-measurement should be based on general administrative regulations. It was necessary to require th a t both these conditions should be fulfilled in order to prevent any arbitrary action in virtue of special regulations. For instance, the administrative regulations would have to provide a definition of “ extensive repairs

The C h a i r m a n suggested th a t the question of a ten-vear time-limit for the tonnage- measurement certificate should be referred to the Technical Committee in accordance with M. Vilfan’s request.

M. M ü l l e r (Czechoslovakia) seconded this suggestion.I t was decided to adopt this course.

Article 5 (former Article 7 ).

Mr. B a l d w i n (British Empire) understood Article 5 to mean th a t no State would be obliged to send in “ nil returns

M. R o m e i n replied in the affirmative and added th a t Mr. Baldwin’s remark applied to all States.

M. M ü l l e r (Czechoslovakia) did not desire to press his previous suggestion regarding verification offices ; it was purely a question of internal policy.

The C h a i r m a n added th a t the views of the Czechoslovak delegate had already been met, since the wording of the French tex t of the article was “ bureaux compétents

Article 5 was adopted.Article 6 (former Article 8).

M. P o p e s c o (Roumania) proposed th a t the time-limit for the notice which had to be given under Article 6 should be extended from three to six months.

On the suggestion of M. B r u n e t , the words : “ within three months of the date on which it learnt of the circumstances ” were altered to read : “ within three months of the date on which the fact is established

Article 6 , thus amended, was adopted.

— 29 —

Article 7 (former Article 9).This article was adopted.

protocol of S ignature : Text adopted by the Drafting Committee (see Annex o ’.

Paragraph A .

M. P o p e s c o (Roumania) thought th a t it would be difficult to adopt paragraph A in its present form until they knew w hat regulations the International Commissions would draw up. He proposed to replace the words “ to establish the regulations necessary ” by the words “ to draw up the ex ecu tive provisions in accordance with the principles of the present Convention

Mr. B a ld W 'IN (British Empire) pointed out th a t the system in force for river craft on the Lower Danube, where there was an International Commission, was not the same as the system now under discussion : it was the system of registered tonnage. The effect of M. Popesco’s text, even more than th a t of the t e x t before them, would be that the Commission would be obliged — a t any rate morally — to adopt this system for the measurement of river craft,

M. P o p e s c o (Roumania) objected th a t w ithout his amendment the effect of paragraph A might be th a t executive regulations would contain provisions entirely alien to the principles of the Convention. No doubt the system employed on the Lower Danube was based on registered tonnage, b u t the former Article 6 would allow any State to demand a second certificate, so th a t the case was covered by the former Article 6 .

M. V i l f a n (Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes) said th a t the present tex t did not sufficiently safeguard the International Commissions. He proposed to insert the two following clauses in paragraph A :

“ 1. The system shall no t in any way affect the system of assessing charges.“ 2. A clause shall be introduced to explain th a t the present Convention shall

in no way prejudice the rights of those International Commissions whose s ta tu te already contain certain rules regarding the assessment of charges. ”

M. P o p e s c o (Roumania) said it was difficult to believe tha t States would undertake to adopt a uniform system of tonnage measurement in order to facilitate navigation if the International Commissions, which also existed with a view to facilitating navigation, were not going to adopt the same measures.

M. R o s s e t t i (Italy) explained th a t International Commissions (which merely consisted of representatives of different States assembled in conference) could only give decisions in accordance with the wishes of the States which composed them. It would be better to leave paragraph A as it was, lest conclusions m ight be drawn from the Convention which might not be acceptable to all the States or in harmony with the provisions by which the International Commissions were governed.

M. v a n S l o o t e n (Netherlands) replied th a t the interests of the States composing the International River Commissions were very different. If the wording adopted were, so to speak, to make the Commissions independent of the Convention, the States chiefly concerned would be signing a Convention by which they themselves would be bound, while a t the same time they m ight be compelled by the action of other States to agree to provisions in an oppo­site sense. All th a t was necessary was to s ta te clearly th a t the existing rights of the Com­missions were not prejudiced by the Convention. The present wording had been adopted after consultation with the representatives of these Commissions and could therefore be retained.

M. R o s s e t t i (Italy) said th a t all States represented on the International River Commis­sions possessed the same powers and th a t the equality of their rights was not open to question.

M. V i l f a n (Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes) observed th a t it seemed to him that the s trict application of the Convention on a given waterway would lead to injustices. That was the reason for his proposal, which had been made in the interests of navigation. However, there were certain objections to tak ing an immediate decision on the course to be adopted. He requested the Chairman to cause the draft clauses in which he would embody his proposals to be circulated to the members of the Drafting Committee.

M. C h a r g u é r a u d - H a r t m a n n (International Oder Commission) explained th a t certain International Commissions might be interested by other points than those of the collection of charges, e.g., questions of police and the general prosperity of inland w ater transport.

Mr. B a l d w i n (British Empire) agreed with M. Charguéraud-Hartmann th a t the com­mercial and navigation interests of different countries varied on different waterways.

It could not ye t be foretold w hether the present Convention would satisfy the interests of navigation on the Lower Danube; in any case, the system which had been in force for the Past sixty years on th a t portion of the river differed from the system under discussion. If the four States represented on the European Commission of the Danube became signatories to the Convention,he could not promise th a t his own Government would instruct him to apply this Convention on the Lower Danube, because such a measure would possibly not result m an improvement in the existing conditions.

30 -

M. P o p e s c o (Roumania) asked whether the acceptance of the Convention by countries similarly situated to Roumania would not depend directly on the acceptance of the Convention by the River Commission.

M. V i l f a n (Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes) desired to explain once more th a t there was an article in the Final S tatu te of the Danube which dealt with the collection of charges. The Convention in its present form would give rise to difficulties in the application of th a t S tatu te , and injustice might be caused. If there was need for amendment, the Inter­national Commission m ust be left free to decide. This was a question wholly different from th a t of the recognition of the tonnage certificates of one riparian State by another. The Drafting Committee would be in a position to appreciate the real issues.

M. v a n S l o o t e n (Netherlands) thought it would be sufficient to s tate th a t the Con­vention did not prejudice the rights of the International Commissions, bu t they should not specify any particular rights.

M. D o b k e v i c i u s (Lithuania) said tha t the Serb-Croat-Slovene delegate had emphasised one point which required elucidation. They could not question the right of a S tate to assess charges on any particular basis, but it would nevertheless be contrary to the aims of the Conference to allow the use of special methods of measurement to be made compulsory ; the only system of measurement allowed should be on the basis of metric tonnage. The mis­understanding was due to a desire to maintain the system of registered tonnage in certain cases.

The present Convention could not possibly prejudice the rights conferred on the Inter­national Commissions by the treaties which created them, but those treaties contained no definite rulings about tonnage measurement. The Commissions could therefore accept the system laid down by the Convention.

M. H o s t i e (Central Rhine Commission), referring to the powers of the River Commissions, thought th a t i t would be very difficult to understand this question if they considered it solely from a legal and theoretical standpoint, especially since the representatives of the non­riparian States were regarded as the guardians of the general interest. But in practice the difficulty appeared to have been removed by the Roumanian delegate’s remark : the River Commissions had been created in the interests of navigation, so th a t it was not probable that the interests of which the River Commissions were the custodians would be found in conflict with the principles on which the Convention was based. The only practical issue which remained was an executive question relating to the Danube, and was concerned solely with the collection of charges. Could they not find a definite solution for this problem either on the lines of the formula proposed by the Serb-Croat-Slovene delegate or of some other formula ?

M. Silvain D p.e y f u s (France) thought they should avoid going too far into the question of charges, as the present Conference was not called on to deal with it. Several delegates desired an assurance th a t the River Commissions would remain free to decide in certain questions ; bu t the Drafting Committee’s wording ought to set their minds perfectly a t rest : it was understood that, wherever an International Commission possessed powers of its own, those powers would not be affected by the Convention.

M. P o p e s c o (Roumania) agreed with the French delegate.The Ch a i r m a n observed that, according to the tex t under discussion, the Commissions

were to have power to frame the necessary regulations for the application of the Convention ; i t did not follow th a t they would be called on to apply these regulations ; in fact, the latter would be pu t in force by the States themselves and the Commissions might merely be asked to frame them. As the present wording had been drawn up by a special committee, which included delegates of all the States represented on the International Commissions, there seemed no objection to retaining it. The question of charges, which had been raised by the Serb- Croat-Slovene delegate, would certainly not be in place in th a t article. Perhaps it might be advisable to say in the Protocol of Signature tha t the Conference had not intended to discuss charges. If th a t view were adopted, the Serb-Croat-Slovene proposal might be referred to the Drafting Committee.

M. H o s t i e (Central Rhine Commission) supported w hat had been said by the Chairman, and drew attention to the diverse character of the powers possessed by the Commissions ; these powers varied from the mere framing of regulations to the application of them by the Commission itself. They must be careful therefore to say nothing to prejudice the scope of these powers.

Paragraph A was adopted.Paragraph B.

This paragraph was adopted.

Paragraph D (former Article 6 ).M. P o p e s c o (Roumania) proposed to insert the word “ provisionally ” between the words

“ m ay ” and , . . request ” ; otherwise there would be danger of perpetuating a system of dual certificates (metric tonnage and registered tonnage) for the Danube navigation, whereas this was merely a provisional measure pending the adoption of a uniform system of measurement.

The C h a i r m a n observed th a t the Belgian delegation had proposed to om it Article 6 and to add the following words to Article 5 :

“ Contracting States which consider it necessary to ascertain the tonnage of a vessel in registered tons may, for this purpose, undertake an additional m e a s u r e m e n t .

— 31 —

M. B o u c k a e r t (Belgium) explained th a t it was desirable to avoid compelling a country which was not interested in this question to draw up certificates in terms of registered tons.

M. R o m e i n e x p l a i n e d t h a t t h e p r e s e n t t e x t d id n o t i n v o l v e any o b l i g a t i o n for c o u n t r i e s to draw u p t w o c e r t i f i c a t e s .

M o reo v e r , the present Belgian proposal did not confine this latitude to countries in which the charges w e r e now collected on the basis of registered tonnage ; nor did it lay down th a t a certificate made out in terms of registered tons which was carried by a vessel m ust be recognised by a State which collected its charges on the basis of registered tonnage.

M. B r u n e t (Belgium) thought th a t it would be expedient to modify the Belgian proposal in such way as to provide the following regulations :

1. The measure would only be applicable to those countries which, at the time of the signature of the Convention, already levied charges on the basis of registered tonnage.

2. If a vessel possessed a second certificate made out in terms of registered tonnage, such certificate m ust be accepted.

M. M ü l l e r (Czechoslovakia) said th a t he preferred the Drafting Committee’s text. He pointed out th a t , under Article 15, Article 6 would be subject to revision.

It was decided that the Drafting Committee should examine the proposal of the Roumanian delegation together with that of the Belgian delegation.

F IF T H (PLENARY) MEETING.

Held on November 26th, 1925, at 11 a.m.

Senator A. M a h i e u in the Chair.

Present : All those who attended the preceding meeting, and in addition, M. L e p i n e and M. P a r f e n o f f (U.S.S. R .) .

Secretariat : M. R o m e i n and M. T e i x i d o r , Member of the Legal Section.

Protocol A rticles of the Convention.

M. P a r f e n o f f (U .S .S .R .) made the following sta tem ent :

“ The Soviet Government, while sharing the views of the Contracting States, as expressed in the Preamble of the d raft Convention, is obliged to make the following reservation in regard to the formalities of ratification and registration :

“ According to the practice of international law, the Government in whose territory the Convention is signed is responsible for the accomplishment of these formalities.

“ Accordingly, the Government of the U .S .S .R . considers th a t the Government of the French Republic and not the Secretariat of the League of Nations should be responsible for receiving the instruments of ratification of this Convention. ”

M. R o m e i n asked whether the Soviet delegation considered th a t this reservation applied in particular to States which were not Members of the League. If so, it would doubtless be possible to arrange th a t those States should deposit their instruments of ratification with the French Government.

M. P a r f e n o f f (U .S .S .R .), replying to M. Romein, stated th a t he would have preferred that all the ratifications should be deposited in the same way, bu t if a num ber of States thought it better to depart from the custom hitherto followed, he had no objection. He accepted M. Romein’s proposal.

It was agreed that the Secretariat should draft a new article which would satisfy the require­ments of the U .S .S .H .

Languages in w hich Tonnage Certificates should be drawn up.

The C h a i r m a n read a proposal by the German delegation th a t certificates should be worded in the language of the country concerned a n d should be accompanied by a translation ln French and German.

M. R o s s e t t i (Italy) thought it would be better to use the national language only, as indeed was the practice in the case of sea-going vessels. In any case, the im portant information was given in figures, which did not require translation.

— 32 —

M. V i l f a n (Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes) agreed. When countries com­municated their regulations to each other, they would also have to send all the information necessary to enable their certificates to be understood, and would subjoin German and F rench translations.

M. M ü l l e r (Czechoslovakia) seconded M. Rossetti’s proposal. He thought indeed that all certificates should be drawn up on one model, which would minimise language difficulties.

Marquis d e F a u r a (Spain) also supported M. Rossetti’s proposal.

M. B r u n e t (Belgium) thought that M. Mtiller’s suggestion would give a practical character to M. Rossetti’s proposal, and, th a t being so, he would not hesitate to accept it.

M. P a r f e n o f f (U.S.S.R.) said th a t the use of two languages — the national one and French — was essential in his own country ; otherwise the competent officials would have very great difficulty in understanding most foreign certificates.

M. R o s s e t t i (Italy) observed tha t the use of two languages would involve a fresh compli­cation : distinctions would have to be drawn between the different waterway systems, as there was no doubt th a t the French language, though useful on the Rhine, was of doubtful utility on the Danube as compared with German or even Italian, and was of no use a t all on the Elbe.

M. P o p e s c o (Roumania) pointed out th a t there were two International Commissions for the Danube and their official language was French. Accordingly, certificates would have to be translated into French, a t any rate for those commissions.

M. D a n t c h o f f (Bulgaria) favoured t h e German proposal.

M. Silvain D r e y f u s (France) observed th a t most seaports possessed sworn translators capable of translating documents of all kinds, whereas inland ports only possessed subordinate officials, lock-keepers or Customs officers, who were not qualified to translate certificates. If they adopted M. Rossetti’s proposal, they would have to insist th a t certificates should be issued in a standard form.

M. v a n S l o o t e n (Netherlands) pointed out that, in the absence of any special provisions, the countries which were bound by the Convention of 1898 only worded certificates in their own language, and this procedure had not caused any inconvenience. If, however, the Conference could not see its way to accept M. Rossetti’s proposal, he would call their atten­tion to the Berne Convention of 1892 on way-bills, and would recommend the system intro­duced by tha t Conference. Under th a t system the way-bill could be drafted by each country in its own language, but must contain an exact translation either in French or in German.

M. F r a n o u x (Germany) observed tha t , if a vessel entered the Elbe with a certificate drafted only in its own language and in French, the document would not be understood. I t was in order to obviate such difficulties, which might arise anywhere and a t any time, th a t he had proposed French and German translations.

M. H o s t i e (Central Rhine Commission) pointed out that, when the Central Rhine Com­mission had settled the question of masters’ certificates, it had arranged th a t these certificates should be worded in three languages — German, French and Dutch. The present problem was much wider, bu t the Conference might perhaps adopt a similar policy.

M. R o s s e t t i (Italy) observed th a t the way-bill had been drawn up by the Conference itself, and it would follow th a t the present Conference would have to draft the tonnage certi­ficate. This document was much more complicated, however, since the information it would contain was not the same in all cases.

Mr. B a l d w i n (British Empire) thought it would be more practical not to establish any specific rule with regard to the language question. In practice, figures of the same kind appeared on very nearly the same line and in the same order on all certificates, and ship­owners would in their own interests arrange to a ttach the necessary translations to each certificate.

M. d e D i e t r i c h (Hungary) agreed. He would prefer certificates to be drafted in the national language and in another language — differing according to the country of destination— which would enable the necessary information to be imparted. M. Rossetti’s proposal could not possibly be applied in certain riparian countries of the Danube, whose languages were very little known and which used Cyrillic characters.

M . V i l f a n (Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes) was opposed to any d i s c r i m in a t io n by the Convention against an alphabet which was constitutionally established in his country.

M. B r u n e t (Belgium) said th a t he interpreted M. Rossetti’s proposal as follows : The Convention would not enjoin the use of any particular languages ; each State would have to decide for itself whether it would use its own language alone or a ttach a translation in another language.

— 33 —

M. M ü l l e r (Czechoslovakia) said th a t canal systems were being steadily developed between the chief rivers — a fact which militated in favour of t h e Italian proposal. Any so lu t ion which imposed upon shipowners the du ty of adding a translation to their certificates would lead to inequality of treatm ent. O n the Elbe, for example, translations would only be necessary for Czechoslovak documents, and Czechoslovakia would thus be the only country which would be pu t to this expense, which he could not accept, On the other hand, he admitted th a t it was difficult to arrive a t an agreement on one single language. B ethough t that the only practical solution was the adoption o f a uniform type of certificate.

M. R o m e i n thought th a t the question should be regarded solely from the practical point of view. If a standard form were adopted for tonnage certificates, the language question would of course no longer arise. If it were not, however, he thought it was almost indispensable to have the information printed in three languages.

M. P o p e s c o ( R o u m a n i a ) p r o p o s e d a s a c o m p r o m i s e t h e fo l lo w in g t e x t :

“ Tonnage certificates shall as a rule be made out in the national language, but, if the exigencies of navigation on the different navigable waterways so require, the Contracting .States m ay have certificates translated into one or more languages. ”

M. Silvain D r e y f u s (France) thought th a t the simplest method would be to have the column headings of certificates in French and German as well as in the national languages. That would be sufficient to prevent serious mistakes, since most officials would know a few

• words in a t least one of the three languages.

M. M ü l l e r (Czechoslovakia) quoted the case of the Danube, where there were six languages belonging to the different riparian States, as wrell as Italian and Greek. In practice, how-

■ ever, navigation did not suffer on this account. According to the draft tonnage-measure­ment regulations adopted a t the first reading by the International Danube Commission, the certificates had to be made out in the national language and accompanied by a French translation.

M. R o s s e t t i (Italy) thought th a t for official purposes it would be better th a t such an elementary knowledge of foreign languages should be used in the reading rather than in the drafting of certificates ; for example, an official could not be expected to enter in a foreign language, on a certificate of his own country, the necessary information regarding the con­struction of a vessel. In the interests of a general agreement, he was willing to consent to the printed pa rt of the certificate being printed in three languages, bu t the official’s own language should alone be used for written entries.

M. D o b k e v i c i u s (Lithuania) thought th a t the special offices concerned possessed officials who were sufficiently acquainted with the necessary terminology to make a correct translation of the few technical terms which were indispensable.

The C h a i r m a n thought th a t they should place themselves in the position of the master of a vessel who was crossing a large number of foreign countries on his way to a country far distant from his own. He asked his colleagues to think over this question and decide at the next meeting either to adopt one of the drafts proposed or else to agree to Mr. Baldwin’s suggestion.

Text of the Convention as adopted by the Drafting Committee (see Annex 4).

Articles 8 and 9.

These articles were adopted without modification.

Article 10 (new).

This article was adopted subject to the deletion of the word “ contracting ” in the first line.

Articles 11, 12 and 13.

These articles were adopted.

Article 14.

M. R o s s e t t i (Italy) proposed to add the words “ and adhering ” between the words “ contracting ” and “ States ” .

M. T e i x i d o r observed th a t in any case the States were “ adhering ” States since they were parties to the Convention.

Article 14 was adopted without modification.

— 34 —

SIX TH (PLENARY) MEETING.

Held on November 27th, 1925, at 9.30 a.m.

Senator A. Ma h i e u in the Chair.

Present : All those who attended the preceding meeting, except M. M üller (Czechoslovakia).

Secretariat : M. H a a s , M. R o m e i n and M. T e i x i d o r .

Communication by the Chairman of the Credentials Committee.

M. R o s s e t t i (Italy) said tha t the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands had just telegraphed to say th a t the plenipotentiary delegates were authorised to sign the Con­vention separately. The Ministers for Foreign Affairs of Hungary, the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes and Bulgaria had stated th a t the full powers had been signed and despatched. The French and Italian delegations had presented their full powers, which had been found in good and due form by the Committee. The Swiss and Swedish delegates had declared th a t they had no powers to sign the Convention. The full powers of the delegates of Austria and the U .S .S .R . had not yet arrived. The delegates of these countries could sign the Convention provided th a t an official document was received, before signature, stating th a t their full powers had been despatched.

Second Reading of the Draft Convention and Annex.

Convention.Preamble and articles 1, 2 and 3.

The above texts were adopted.Article 4.

The following amendments were proposed :

In line 3, add : “ or important changes ” and in place of “ m ay require or effect ” read “ may be required or effected

The C h a i r m a n , in reply to a question by M. D o b k e v i c i u s , thought th a t it would be impossible to allow the internal dimensions of a fully-loaded vessel to be verified.

Article 4 was adopted, with the drafting amendments which had just been introduced.

Article 5.

M. F r a n o u x (Germany) stated that, in the German delegation’s opinion, the provisions of this article would not prevent the exchange of complete dossiers between the Czechoslovak and German administrations (which was provided for by the Agreement of 1913) from being continued as heretofore.

M. P r o c h a z k a (Czechoslovakia) said th a t his delegation agreed with this view.

The Conference took note of these declarations.

Article 5 was adopted.

Article 6 .This article was adopted.

Article 7 (new) (see Annex 6 ).

M. Z i f f e r e r (Austria) pointed out th a t the Austrian system differed from the Roum anian system. He asked th a t Austria should be granted the time-limit of five years in the same way as other countries.

Mr. B a l d w i n (British Empire) pointed out that, under this article, no State would be obliged to undertake a re-measurement for five years. That provision was of a general character ; it was therefore useless to specify certain rules which would be provisionally recognised during th a t period.

M. P o p e s c o (Roumania) said th a t the Austrian system was almost identical with the other systems referred to in this article. In order to meet the case they might, after enumerating the three systems which would be provisionally sanctioned, add some words to this effect : “ and the other similar systems at present in force ”,

M. P a r f e n o f f (U.S.S.R.) said th a t the same difficulty arose for his own country, which should also be allowed the benefit of the time-limit.

— 35 —

After a general discussion, in which the Chairman, M. D ob kev ic ius , M. Z i f f e r e r , M. Franoux, Mr. B a ld w in and M. R o s s e t t i took part, M. B r u n e t proposed to add the foi lowing words to the text :

“ During the same period, certificates issued prior to October 1st, 1926, on the basis of other systems of measurement and calculation, shall continue to be recognised by the States which now recognise them. ”

M. R ossetti (Italy) said that he would be satisfied if they inserted in the above text, after the word “ recognised ”, the words “ or shall be recognised during that period

After discussion, it was proposed to replace the existing text of Article 7 by the following words :

“ As a temporary measure and for a period of five years from October 1st, 1926, certificates issued prior to that date shall be accepted where this is at present the case and where they m ay be recognised in accordance with a special arrangement. ”

M. P arfenoff (U .S .S .R .) accepted the above wording on behalf of his Government.

M. F ranoux (Germany) accepted the text, subject to the provisions of paragraph III of the Protocol of Signature.

Subject to the above observation by the German delegate, the new text proposed for Article 7 (new) was adopted

Articles 8, 9, 10 and 11.These articles were adopted.

Article 12.

This text was adopted, with the following amendment moved by M. R ossetti : in place of “ jour de l ’entrée en vigueur de cette dernière ” read “ jour de son entrée en vigueur (No change in English text.)

Articles 13, 14 and 15.These articles were adopted.

A n i i s x .Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8.

These articles were adopted, with the following changes : The word “ characteristic ” to read “ distinguishing ” and the following paragraph to be added to Article 7 : “ The list of the letters distinguishing the States is attached to the present Annex ” .

Article 9.

This article was adopted, with the following amendments :

Paragraph (2) : In place of “ characteristics ” read “ distinguishing ”.Paragraph (5) to read : “ The extreme length of the hull and the greatest breadth

of beam ”.Paragraph (6) to read : “ The particulars referred to in paragraph (2)

above as shown on the last certificate, if any, which has been cancelled by the new measurement

Paragraph (9). Instead of “ celui ” read “ le plan (No change in English text.)

A d d en d u m I : F o r m s I an d I I (see Annex 7).

M. D evai. (France) explained that “ displacement” , in its etymological sense, referred to volume. It had become customary to extend it to weight. It was therefore necessary to saydefinitely whether the certificates were to give the displacement in terms of volume or of weight ; the latter course would be impossible, because the result must depend on the density of the water in which the vessel was floating, whereas the displacement in terms of volume remained constant. Therefore, if they desired to have complete uniformity, the certificates must show the displacement in terms of volume ; a shipowner would then be able to compute the weight for himself by multiplying this volume by the density of the water. He therefore proposed to replace the headings of columns 4 and 6 (tonnage entered in the cancelled certi­ficate) by the following heading : “ Maximum displacement in volume entered in the cancelled certificate ”.

M. R ossetti (Italy) observed that the object of the Convention, as stated in Article 1 of the Annex, was to determine the weight of the vessel or the cargo. They must therefore, in order to avoid any misunderstanding, say. in this article, not “ to determine ”, but to “ make it possible to determine

This was agreed to.

Table of D is t in g u is h in g L etter s of S ta te s .

M. R yniker (Switzerland) agreed to the letters “ C.H. ” for his country.

The table was adopted (see Annex 7, Addendum II).

— 36 —

Protocol of Signature.Paragraphs I and I I .

These paragraphs were adopted.

Paragraph I I I (see Annex 6 ).

As regards paragraph III , the Ch a i r m a n proposed to replace it by the following text in order to meet certain objections of the German delegation :

" I t is understood that, as a temporary measure and during a period not exceed­ing ten years from October 1st, 1926, the certificates issued in accordance with the rules of measurement and calculation contained in the Agreements of 1913 between Germany and Austria-Hungary, in the administrative districts where the measure­ments are a t present made according to these rules, shall be accepted as equivalent to the certificates issued in accordance with the conditions provided for in the present Convention and its Annex. ”

M. F r a n o u x (Germany) thought th a t he could accept this text, bu t he reserved the right to reconsider the time-limit imposed.

The C h a i r m a n thanked the German delegation for its conciliatory a tti tude and for the great sacrifices which it had consented to make in the interests of a general agreement.

The new wording of Paragraph I I I was adopted (see Annex 6 a).

Paragraph IV .

As regards paragraph IV, M. P o p e s c o (Roumania) admitted th a t the Conference had made very im portant progress towards the standardisation of systems of measurement ; but he regretted th a t they had not succeeded in attaining th a t goal, a t any rate, as regards naviga­tion on the Danube. The admission of the right to require a second measurement certificate in registered tons would a t once create new difficulties for the Danube river craft (which had to make voyages in countries where the navigation dues were based on registered tons) and would tend to complicate rather than to simplify the statistics.

For, indeed, these vessels would have to carry two certificates. If the Conference did not a t least hold out some prospect th a t standardisation would eventually be achieved, the present situation would continue indefinitely. I t was for these reasons th a t he had urged them to insert the word “ provisionally ”, which would make it easier for all the Danubian States to ratify the Convention.

M. V i l f a n (Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes) could not help feeling very uneasy, particularly as regards statistics on the Danube, and said th a t he could not commit his Govern­m ent to any modification in the method of collecting charges in the ports of his country.

M. R o s s e t t i (Italy) observed th a t M. Popesco had merely asked th a t they should hold out some prospect of attaining standardisation. He would say a t once th a t he agreed to th a t request. Moreover, the effect of the Convention would be in no way modified thereby.

M. D a n t c h o f f (Bulgaria) and M. Z i f f e r e r (Austria) supported M. Popesco’s proposal.

M. V i l f a n (Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes) said tha t , after the explanations given by M. Rossetti, he was prepared to accept the following alteration :

“ I t is understood th a t any S t a t e ..................may r e q u e s t ....................as a tem­porary m e a s u r e .....................”

Paragraph IV , as thus amended, was adopted.

Paragraph V.

M. H o s t i e (Central Rhine Navigation Commission) thought th a t it was desirable to define the meaning of the term “ international navigation ” from the point of view of the River Commissions. A vessel navigating between two national ports on an international river was none the less engaged in international navigation.

M. R o s s e t t i (Italy) said he agreed with this interpretation.Paragraph V was adopted, with the following amendment : after the words “ Articles 2

and 5 ” insert “ of the ConventionParagraph VI.

Paragraph V I was adopted, with the following amendment : For “ indelible Greek Cross read “ indelible cross having arms of equal length ” ,

Paragraph V I I .This paragraph was adopted.

Languages in which Tonnage Certificates should be drawn up (continued).

M. R o m e i n suggested tha t the insertion of a recommendation in the Final Act m i g h t

prove a satisfactory solution for everybody.

— 37 —

If the Conference agreed, they might ask the Advisory and Technical Committee for Communications and Transit t o d r a w up a standard form of certificate as soon as possible. They might also recommend the States, pending the coming into force of the certificates e s ta b l i sh e d in accordance w i t h the standard form, to draft t h e printed portion of the certi­ficate in three languages, namely, the national language, French and German.

M. Romein suggested the following wording :

" The Conference requests the Advisory and Technical Committee for Com­munications and Transit of the League of Nations to establish, if possible, before October 1st, 1926, a standard form of certificate of measurement which will be communicated to all the States represented at the Conference. Pending the coming into force of certificates established in accordance with this standard form, the Conference recommends th a t the printed tex t of the certificates established by the Contracting States shall be drafted in French and German and in the national language when this language is o ther than French or German. ”

The Conference adopted this draft recommendation for insertion in the Final Act.

SEVENTH (PLENARY) MEETING.

Held on November 21th, 1925, at 1 p.m.

Senator A. M a h i e u in the Chair.

Present : All those who attended the preceding meeting.

Secretariat : M. H a a s and M. R o m e i n .

Adoption of the Final T exts of the Convention, Annex, Protocol of Signature and ofthe Final Act.

The C h a i r m a n had the tex t of the Convention, Annex and Protocol of Signature read.He announced th a t the German delegation considered th a t the time-limit of ten years

inserted in paragraph III of the Protocol of Signature somewhat too rigid. I t accordingly requested th a t if, a t the expiration of this time-limit, the States which issued the old certi­ficates had not abandoned the reservation referred to in paragraph III , a new Conference might be convened to consider the question. The rights of the Conference had therefore been fully safeguarded, and, in the opinion of the Chairman, this formula might be accepted by all the delegates (see Annex 6 aa).

M. P o p e s c o (Roumania) said th a t he had abandoned the Roumanian system for the sake of arriving a t a uniform method. If it was nowr intended to allow the Elbe system to be recognised for a somewhat indefinite period, it would be difficult for him to sign a Convention without asking his Government for fresh instructions. He had already explained th a t on the Danube they could no t consider the Elbe system as equivalent.

M. R o m e i n observed th a t the only certificates in question were those issued in the admi­nistrative districts where the Elbe system is already employed and in Germany the Elbe system was not employed on the Danube.

M. P o p e s c o (Roumania) said th a t he was satisfied, if it was clearly understood th a t the Elbe system would not be employed on the Danube.

M. R o m e i n observed th a t in practice the case contemplated by M. Popesco would never arise. There was not a t present any communication by waterway between the Danube and the Elbe. As regards the vessels of the Bavarian Lloyd, they would be measured under the system prescribed by the Convention.

M. P r o c h a z k a (Czechoslovakia) said th a t he had understood from a statement of M. Oppermann’s th a t the Elbe system would also be applied on the Danube. He asked the German delegation for an explanation.

M. F r a n o u x (Germany) replied th a t this was not the case. He entirely agreed with the explanations given by M. Romein. The Elbe system would only be applied within the jurisdiction of offices which already employed th a t system.

Subject to the above explanations, the wording of paragraph l i t of the Protocol of Signature proposed by the German delegation was adopted.

The Conference adopted the text of the Convention, the Annex, and the Protocol of Signature as a whole (see Annex 7).

The Conference also adopted the recommendation in the Final Act (see Annex 8 ).

— 38 —

Closing Speeches.

M. E n c k e l l (Finland) desired to express the heartfelt gratitude of all his colleagues to the official who had presided over their labours for the impartiality, the never-failing courtesy and the conspicuous ability with which he had guided their discussions to so happy a con­clusion. He begged the Chairman to convey to the French Government the grateful thanks of all the delegates for the cordial hospitality which had been extended to them. They would all carry away with them the most agreeable recollections of the Conference, combined with an impression of friendly co-operation and complete agreement.

The C h a i r m a n begged to thank his colleagues from the bottom of his heart for the friendly and generous, bu t far too eulogistic, words which M. Enckell had just spoken in their name.

It was not without certain apprehensions th a t he had taken the presidential chair, but thanks to the care with which each member had considered these questions, thanks to the willingness of all to work for the best solution, he was able to declare now, a t the end of their discussions, th a t the cause of unification had made a great — and in his opinion a decisive— step in advance.

Some people might consider th a t their work had not progressed speedily enough, but he did not share th a t view. In human life, in the life of nations, progress may not be attained suddenly, but by gradual evolution. They were now in the first stage of this evolution : the members of this Conference were the pioneers in th a t enterprise. He thanked them for accepting th a t rôle.

He would not fail to convey to his Government the cordial sentiments which had been expressed. He would be able to state th a t it was owing, above everything, to the good-will manifested by all of them, to the science of the engineers, to the skill of the jurists and diplo­matists, th a t it had been possible to arrive a t a definite agreement on this Convention, so impatiently awaited by the world’s mariners, the men who contributed so largely to the wealth of nations.

In former days, communication systems were not invested with the same importance as they now possessed ; nowadays they occupied the foremost place in the imagination not only of engineers, not only of those who travelled by them, bu t of the statesmen in every land : indeed, they represented one of the most vital elements in the existence of modern countries.

For these reasons he tendered his thanks to his colleagues for the efforts they had put forth in a great cause and for the solution they had adopted — a solution pregnant with splendid possibilities.

II. MINUTES

OF THE MEETINGS OF THE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE.

FIR ST MEETING.

Held on November 21s/, 1925, at 4.30 p.m.

M. B o u c k a e r t in the Chair.

Present : M. R o e s l e r (Austria),Mr. D a n i e l (British Empire),M. D a n t c h o f f (Bulgaria),M. M ü l l e r (Czechoslovakia),M. D e v a l (France),M. G e h l h a a r (Germany),M. d e D i e t r i c h (Hungary),M. F a l c e t t i (Italy),M. v a n D r i e l (Netherlands),M. P o p e s c o (Roumania),M. V i l f a n (Kingdom of t h e Serbs, Croats and Slovenes),M. R y n i k e r (Switzerland),M. E. R o d r i g u e z y F e r n a n d e z M e s a (Spain),M. B a u l e (International Danube Commission).

Secretary : M. R o m e i n .

Election of Chairman.

M. B o u c k a e r t was unanimously elected Chairman of the Committee.

The C h a i r m a n thanked his colleagues for the confidence they had shown in him by choosing him as Chairman, and he expressed the hope th a t the Committee would secure the results which the plenary Conference desired.

Draft Convention on the M easurem ent of V essels employed in Inland Navigation: General Discussion.

Their work was to arrive a t a uniform system of tonnage measurement. This question had already been discussed a t considerable length by the Committee of Experts, and the German delegate in particular had emphasised the merits of the Elbe system.

The Chairman asked the Committee to give a decision on the system of tonnage measure­ment introduced by the 1898 Convention. This system appeared to be free from any serious defects. Four countries had already adopted it and a fifth was prepared to do so. He desired to know w hat criticisms the Committee had to make on this system.

M. V i l f a n (Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes) mentioned that, a t t h e second session of the Sub-Committee on Inland Navigation, this system had already been criticised by M. Oppermann.

For his part, he thought th a t the Rhone system, while proving satisfactory in five countries, did not appear to be accurate enough for inland navigation such as th a t carried on on the Danube.

When a Rhine vessel which had been measured under the Rhine system passed on to the Danube, it would be placed in a better position than Danube vessels which were a t present measured according to the Elbe or the Roumanian systems.

Though his Government was anxious to see a uniform system of tonnage measurement set up, it could not recognise certificates made out under the Rhine system as equivalent to the other certificates. The latter system was, as M. Oppermann had said, quite suitable for fairly large vessels like those on the Rhine, bu t it might not be adapted to other types of vessel.

Two methods were possible : (1) to make a distinction between the different systems of measurement (a large num ber of delegates would not be able to accept this alternative) ;(2) to s tate tha t , as past experience had shown th a t the Elbe and the Roumanian systems were not very different,

“ any vessel would be measured according to the law in force in the country to which it belongs ; certificates drawn up in accordance with the Elbe system or the Roumanian system may be taken out in respect of the vessel in the event of its proceeding to a foreign country. ”

- 40 —

The C h a i r m a n pointed out th a t M. Vilfan’s proposal did not appear to comply with the requirements mentioned by the Committee. For the present he would ask members merely to consider the various systems.

He desired his colleagues to state what objections they had to the Rhine system.M. P o p e s c o (Roumania) was of opinion th a t the register-ton system in inland navigation

should be abandoned there and then. In its desire to arrive a t an agreement, the Roumanian Government m ight perhaps be induced to accede — provided the Germans gave up their system— to a uniform method of computation, consisting in the method of measurement by means of horizontal planes in force on the Rhine, although it regarded its own method as more accurate. The Elbe system could not be applied on the Lower Danube ; it did not give accurate results.

M. V i l f a n (Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes) pointed out tha t they had not yet taken up the question of the method of computation of the area of the planes, by which alone it would be possible to decide on scientific lines whether the Rhine and the Roumanian systems gave equally accurate results. He wished to know the method of calculation employed in connection with the Rhine system.

In reply to M. Vilfan, the C h a i r m a n read the special instructions issued in Belgium a n d

France.He was of opinion th a t the method employed in the Rhine system of measuring the

segments was a very accurate one. Obviously, the result depended entirely on the shape of the vessel and on its length. W hat had been aimed a t was the preparation of instructions which would enable the area to be measured as accurately as possible.

M. R y n i k e r (Switzerland) held th a t they m ust keep constantly in mind tha t , in order to calculate the volume between the water-lines of the unloaded and the loaded vessel, this volume had to be integrated by taking either the height or the length. This was the most accurate system. He considered tha t the Rhine system, in which the water-lines were taken a t successive distances of 1 0 centimetres, gave very accurate results.

If they desired all countries to adopt the Rhine system, a sufficient number of vertical ordinates should be prescribed to enable mathematically accurate results to be obtained.

The Rhine system was, in his opinion, a very good and practical one, and the figures could be worked out a t any height on the vessel’s side and a t any point of immersion.

Although the results could be obtained more quickly under the Elbe system than the Rhine system, the former were, however, only approximate.

Their main task was to arrive at the most accurate possible method of measurement, regardless of the time which the process involved.

M. V i l f a n (Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes) stated that, as a m atter of fact, any system in which a sufficient number of ordinates was employed would be a good one. In his opinion, however, the Rhine system did not give such accurate results as were claimed for it, and he thought the Elbe system was the best one for tonnage measurement.

The Ch a i r m a n replied th a t comparison was worthless unless it could b e made b y employ­ing methods of computation which were sufficiently alike.

W hat objections as regards accuracy could be brought against a system which consisted in dividing up a vessel into segments separated only by ten centimetres ?

He reminded the Committee th a t its instructions were to arrive a t a uniform system of tonnage measurement.

M. P o p e s c o (Roumania) considered th a t the method of computation by means of vertical planes was more accurate than th a t by horizontal planes, and th a t this latter method had the further disadvantage of being more difficult in practice, particularly in regard to vessels of the type employed on the Lower Danube.

M. G e h l h a a r (Germany) thought th a t the system of tonnage measurement by means of horizontal planes gave very good results. He did not feel certain, however, tha t, if a uniform system was agreed to, States would be prepared to re-measure all their vessels.

M. R o m e i n wished to remove any possibility of misunderstanding. The acceptance of a uniform system did not necessarily involve the re-measurement of vessels employed in navigation which had already been measured. A compromise might be found by which tonnage certificates issued before the coming into force of the Convention could be recognised for a certain period.

M. V i l f a n (Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes) thought th a t the three systems m ight be allowed to subsist side by side for a t least ten years ; a t the end of th a t period a decision could be taken as to their respective merits, and the most accurate and the simplest could then be selected.

M. D e v a l (France) thought tha t the margin of error in connection with tonnage measure­m ent by means of horizontal planes was the chief difficulty. I t was obviously difficult to discover a formula, but each State might be left free to issue the regulations which it c o n s i d e r e d most suitable, provided the margin of error allowed was not greater than, say, 1 per cent.

The C h a i r m a n considered th a t it would be difficult to decide whether the margin of error in the various operations did not exceed 1 per cent. Further, it would be almost impossi­ble to impose penalties. I t would therefore be better to issue precise instructions which would give full satisfaction as regards accuracy. The essential point was th a t they should agree as to these instructions. He considered tha t M. Ryniker should supply a formula for the

— 41 —

m e a s u re m e n t of vessels by means of horizontal segments and submit it to the Committee sl a later session.

M. P o p e s c o (Roumania) was of opinion th a t it would be difficult to find a formula applic­able to all types of vessels plying on the Danube.

M. V i l f a n (Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes) pointed out th a t it was very necessary to carry out measurements on the vessel itself, since the shape of the vessel changed in course of time. In a number of countries, indeed, vessels were re-measured periodically.

M. Ryniker was asked to submit a formula at a later meeting.

Examination of the Annex to the Draft Convention (see Annex 2).

Article 1.

M. d e D i e t r i c h (Hungary) explained th a t the obligation of determining the weight of the vessel exclusively by measurements taken on the vessel itself seemed to him to consti­tute a restriction which called for certain observations, because there were methods which made it. possible to carry out, in the first place, measurement by planes, with a view to determining the plane a t the floating level of the unloaded vessel. The level thus calculated was verified by certain measurements taken on the vessel afloat, with a view finally to calculating the exact course of immersion (Lasten-Massstab).

This method gave very good results from the point of view of accuracy, and was even necessary in the case of certain types of vessels where it was impossible to take exact measure­ments on the vessels themselves. He thought tha t, if they eliminated, a priori, measurements on the planes of construction, they would make i t necessary to re-measure a large number of vessels which had been measured in this manner. They should therefore take this possibility into consideration when considering various systems of tonnage measurement.

M. R o m e i n stated th a t the Committee was considering a system applicable to the future.He thought i t necessary to indicate th a t what they had in view was the case of a vessel

floating in fresh water. The results thus obtained would no longer be accurate if the vessel, after being measured in fresh water, was employed at sea.

M. V i l f a n (Kingdom o f the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes) agreed with M. Romein’sobservation.

M. B a u l e (International Danube Commission) considered that this statem ent might be inserted in Article 6.

M. D e v a l (France) did not th ink it necessary to make any reference to fresh water, for the definition was perfectly correct whether they were dealing with fresh water or salt water.No m atter what the liquid was, the weight of the vessel was always equal to the weight ofthe volume displaced. The displacement of the unloaded and of the loaded vessel would both be taken either in fresh water or in salt water.

The Ch a i r m a n pointed out th a t the framers of the Convention had always had in mind fresh water. A sta tem ent would therefore have to be inserted to the effect that, all the data in the Annex related to operations carried out in fresh water, it being understood that, if the vessel proceeded to sea, corrections would have to be made.

He proposed th a t a sentence should be inserted before Article 1 in some such terms as follows : “ In the following articles the vessel is assumed to be floating in fresh water

This proposal was adopted.Article 2.

M. M ü l l e r (Czechoslovakia) proposed th a t the words “ decimals of a ton ” should be added a t the end of this article, as i t was difficult to work in fractions of metric tons.

This amendment was adopted.Article 3.

M. R o m e i n , replying to a question by M. F a l c e t t i (Italy), stated th a t what was intended was the m axim um immersion authorised in the countries in which the vessel would be employed. This maximum could be determined either by the draught or by the freeboard.

M. v a n D r i e l (Netherlands) thought th a t the article was not very clear on this point.M. R y n i k e r (Switzerland) suggested th a t they should bring the texts of Articles 1 and 3

into agreement. Article 1 further took into account the case of vessels not employed for carrying goods, whereas in Article 3 the volume to be measured was defined as the volume between the light-load-line and the plane passing through the line of maximum draught. It would therefore be desirable to s tate in Article 3 th a t it merely applied to vessels used in carrying freight. Account should also be taken of the case of tugs.

M. R o m e i n stated th a t the light-load-line of a tug and its plane of maximum draught were one and the same. He considered tha t, in the case of tugs not designed to carry goods, it should be stated th a t the volume to be measured was the external volume of the part of the hull included between the light-load-line and the keelson of the vessel.

M. R y n i k e r (Switzerland) considered it desirable to have this addition inserted in Article 3.

M. G e h l h a a r (Germany) pointed ou t th a t the measurement of vessels which are not employed in the carriage of goods was a very difficult m atter and, as a rule, could only be

— 42 —

performed on land. He wanted to know whether it was necessary to provide for this caseor whether it would not be better to omit it altogether.

M. V i l f a n (Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes) asked if it was intended to delete the words “ the weight of the vessel ” in Article 1.

M. B a u l e (International Danube Commission) submitted a new wording for Article 3(see Annex 3, Article 3, alternative 1).

M. R y n i k e r (Switzerland) considered th a t M. Baule’s proposal would meet the difficulty.

The C h a i r m a n pointed out th a t Articles 1 and 3 should be brought into harmony.The new draft of Article 3 was held over for discussion at a later meeting.

SECOND MEETING.

Held on November 24th, 1925, at 10 a.m.

M. B o u c k a e r t in the Chair.

Present : All the members who attended the preceding meeting.Secretary : M. R o m e i n .

Draft Convention on the M easurem ent of Vessels employed in Inland NavigationGeneral D iscussion (continued).

M. R o e s l e r (Austria) asked permission to explain the system employed in Austria for determining the weight of the cargo. The designs of the builders of the vessel were taken for the purpose of establishing the volume of water displaced ; a displacement graph was prepared and the light-load-line determined. By using this graph the weight of cargo for each centimetre or decimetre of displacement could be determined.

This techn cal method, in accordance with the rules of ship construction, had much to recommend it on scientific grounds, provided always th a t the builders supplied accurate drawings. The competent authorities were responsible for supervising the accuracy of these designs.

Most of the iron barges sailing under the Austrian flag were provided with documents drawn up in this way.

It would perhaps be possible to recommend this method of tonnage measurement along­side the others. If this was not done, shipping companies would be pu t to considerable expense.

M. P o p e s c o (Roumanie) stated th a t in Roumania the position was exactly the same. An accurate design and a graph were provided in respect of each vessel. The measurements were made on the vessel itself, and not on the design, by engineers who were specially qualified for the task. They performed this operation in the shipyards, which were the only tonnage- measurement offices.

Exam ination of the Annex to the Draft Convention (continued).

Article 3 (continued).

The Ch a i r m a n opened the discussion on the new draft proposed by M. Baule at the previous meeting.

M. D e v a l (France) considered th a t the second part of this amendment referred to a very special case and th a t there was no need to ascertain the weight of the empty vessel.

M. V i l f a n (Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes) considered, on the other hand, th a t these particulars were very useful. He desired, however, to raise a question of principle. He was of opinion tha t they should merely define the weight by using the d is p la c e m e n t .

M. R y n i k e r (Switzerland) pointed out th a t previous Committees had distinguished between the weight of the cargo and the weight of the vessel. Accordingly, a question of principle was involved. Article 3 in its present form was inadequate, for it did not provide the means of determining the weight of a vessel w ithout its cargo. For th a t reason he wished to make a distinction between barges and tugs, i.e., between the cargo draught and traction draught.

M. D e v a l (France) stated th a t he saw objections to a tex t in which reference was made to an unloaded vessel : the draught of a tug with its bunkers full was not the same as that of a tug with its bunkers half empty.

M. R o m e i n was of opinion th a t the only accurate figures regarding tugs were those of their weight when empty.

M. R y n i k e r (Switzerland) referred to the case of a tug with scuttles. Different free­board regulations provided th a t these scuttles should be placed a t different heights, and

— 43 —

this difference affected the displacement. In addition, a tug could not be so deep in the water as a barge. For these two reasons, accordingly, it was necessary to measure the draught of the empty vessel.

M. D e v a l (France) stated th a t the regulations in force in France provided that a line should be painted round every steamer indicating the load-line and this line represented the m a x im u m displacement according to the regulations in force. E ither the maximum displace­m ent or the displacement of the vessel when em pty could be entered in the tonnage certificate.

M. V i l f a n (Kingdom o f the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes) considered th a t the point raised by M. Deval could be m et by mentioning, in the second part of the article amended by M. Baule, a third case providing tha t , so far as tugs were concerned, the line of maximum displacement should be taken.

The C h a i r m a n said th a t it was open to them to select one of two methods. The one they selected would depend on whether they wished to obtain the weight of the vessel or the weight of the cargo. The weight of the empty vessel could be obtained by a very simple subtraction sum. The new draft proposed bv M. Baule supplied the particulars.

Mr. D a n i e l (British Empire) pointed o u t th a t duties would be levied not only on the capa­city of the vessel bu t also on its dimensions. Article 1, which in its present form only fixed the capacity, would therefore have to be redrafted. B u t while it was easy to estimate the capacity of a cargo vessel, th e case was very different as regards the displacement of a tug.

M. v a n D r i e l (Netherlands) stated tha t , if it was decided th a t vessels which were not used for carrying freight should be measured by their displacement, their tonnage would as a rule be greater than th a t of the majority of vessels of like dimensions which had, however, been built to carry goods. Moreover, vessels of the former class might be larger. In any case, there was no means of comparing the respective tonnage of the two classes.

He was of opinion th a t th a t circumstance might lead to differences not only in the amount of the duties levied bu t also in the statistical data . He thought it would be possible to remove these differences. T ha t was the object of his amendment (see Annex 2 a).

In the Netherlands, they had a large number of vessels which were not used for carrying freight and which did not ply on the Rhine. As a result, there was no need to obtain a special freeboard for each of these vessels from the Central Commission for Rhine Navigation which would enable them to secure the benefit of a minimum tonnage. When these vessels were measured in the Netherlands, the method employed was the same as th a t on the Rhine, except, in one particular.

This modification did not consist in any alteration of the method of measurement or cal­culation. A fictitious maximum displacement was taken, however, which was much greater than the actual maximum immersion. A plane was selected for this fictitious displacement corresponding to the maximum immersion authorised in the case of vessels carrying goods, i.e., to a line allowing a freeboard of 30 centimetres (still less in certain cases), or to a line coinciding with the bottom of the lowest scuttle on the ship’s side.

There was no doubt whatever th a t this method would give results in the case of tugs which would correspond as nearly as possible to the tonnage-measurement results of vessels carrying cargo.

Modifications would, however, have to be made in two articles of the Annex.

M. R y n i k e r (Switzerland) considered th a t this amendment once more raised the question of principle — whether they ought to disregard the tonnage measurement of all vessels other than cargo vessels.

The C h a i r m a n considered th a t this proposal amounted to determining the maximum displacement authorised by the regulations. A general definition could not be framed. The maximum displacement described in M. van Driel’s amendment would only be valid for the Netherlands.

M. v a n D r i e l (Netherlands) withdrew his amendment but reserved the right to propose an amendment to Article 9.

M. M ü l l e r (Czechoslovakia) thought it would be better not to deal with the question of tugs. If, however, it was desired to include them, he would support the method suggested by M . Roesler and M . Popesco, which consisted in recognising the shipbuilders’ certificates after they had been officially checked.

M. P o p e s c o (Roumania) thought th a t the question of tugs a n d passenger boats was of very minor importance. He agreed with M. Muller’s views.

M. R y n i k e r (Switzerland) pointed out that the Tonnage Measurement Conference summoned in 1923 by the Central Commission for Rhine Navigation had introduced the conception of displacement and the distinction between cargo carriers and tugs, which had not been provided for in the 1898 regulations.

The C h a i r m a n thought th a t the Conference should settle the question of principle by adopting either the present tex t of Article 3, which related solely7 to determining the cargo,

— 44 —

or the new d raft supplied by M. Baule, which also included tugs. T ha t draft could besupplemented as follows by M. Vilfan’s amendment :

“ To ascertain the weight of the vessel corresponding to a given displacement the volume to be measured is the external volume of the part of the hull included between : (1 ) the plane of the given displacement and (2 ) the plane a t the levelof the keelson of the vessel. ”

M. R o m e i n p o i n t e d o u t t h a t t h e s a m e o p t i o n s h o u ld b e g iv e n in r e g a r d t o Article 1, a n d a c h o ice a l lo w e d b e t w e e n t h e p r e s e n t w o r d i n g a n d a t e x t in w h ic h t h e w o r d s “ t h e weight of t h e ves se l ” w o u l d be d e l e t e d .

It was decided thal the Sub-Committee should submit both texts and leave the decision lo the Conference.

Article 4.

M. R y n i k e r (Switzerland) said th a t his amendment and the French amendment (see Annex 2 b) were substantially the same. The results obtained by the trapezium rule, however, were somewhat less than the strictly accurate results, and in using this rule a larger number of ordinates had to be employed.

M. D e v a l (France) replied th a t there were two rectilinear ordinates and two curvilinear bases for each trapezium. He pointed out tha t the Simpson formula m ust be used for the curves.

M. d e D i e t r i c h (Hungary) thought it essential to state th a t both sides were curvilinear, for tha t altered the formula. He further proposed th a t the words “ or other formulas not involving a greater margin of error ” should be omitted from the French proposal. In his opinion, the Simpson formula alone should be employed. Calculations which he had made with this formula and by the Belgian method produced results which showed a difference of as much as 18 square metres for each plane.

M. G e h l h a a r (Germany) was of opinion th a t the French proposal was specially of value for French vessels which had a special design. He would prefer M. Ryniker’s formula, which was better adapted to the shape of vessels employed in other countries. He desired, however, th a t the words “ for the carriage of goods ” should be deleted. Finally, the German Govern­m ent urged th a t the Conference should modify the end of Article 7 and make the clause optional by inserting the words “ these particulars may be replaced ” instead of “ these particulars shall be replaced

M. V i l f a n (Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes) said he could only accept the French proposal if it was framed in more precise terms and if it did not allow of any departure from the principle of the exclusive use of the Simpson formula.

M. M ü l l e r (Czechoslovakia) stated th a t the Ryniker formula was better adapted to inland navigation conditions on the Elbe and on the Danube, for on these rivers the shape of the vessels was generally the prismatic form amidships, the bows and the stern being of a triangular rather than a trapezoidal form. As regarded calculation of the surface of the horizontal segments, he proposed th a t they should suggest their division into elements by normal ordinates to the longitudinal axis of the vessel a t suitable distances (for the Elbe, for instance, it was laid down th a t the distance separating the various ordinates should not exceed five metres). The surface of the middle portion would be calculated by Simpson’s rule and th a t of the two extremities, if necessary, by other exact methods which took the curvilinear form into account.

M. R y n i k e r (Switzerland) pointed out th a t the shape of the Rhine vessels was such that measurement would have to be made by using a t least ten ordinates. A t the same time, he did not desire to make the working of the systems too difficult by insisting on an unduly large number of ordinates. He proposed to say “ by a t least five ordinates ” . A larger number could always be used if the shape of the vessel rendered it necessary.

The Ch a i r m a n proposed tha t M. Deval and M. Ryniker should draw up a single text which would take into account the various observations made.

M. P o p e s c o (Roumania) submitted his amendment (see Annex 2 6) proposing th a t vessels should also be divided up into vertical segments. Very accurate results were obtained by using this method. Roumanian shipbuilders were accustomed to employ it, and if it was given up considerable expense and trouble would be caused.

M. d e D i e t r i c h (Hungary) stated th a t the method referred to had been employed in Rou­mania only for the last two years. I t was difficult to carry out and no re-measurement was possible unless the vessel was placed in dry dock. In addition, it would be very difficult to work with vertical sections in the case of the Danube motor-barges.

M. V i l f a n (Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes) stated th a t every country would have to give up part of its existing practice to secure the unification which was indispensable.

M. P o p e s c o (Roumania) did not press his amendment, bu t he could not undertake on behalf of his Government to abandon this method.

M. v a n D r i e l (Netherlands) said that, after considering the objections of M. Deval, M. Müller and M. Ryniker, he recognised th a t his amendment to Article 4 (see Annex 26) related mainly to a special case which could not be dealt with by a general provision, and he withdrew his amendment.

It was decided that M. D e v a l and M. R y n i k e r should submit a joint draft of Article 4 at the next meeting.

— 45 —

T H IR D MEETING.

Held on November 24th, 1925, at 3.30 p. in

M. B o u c k a e r t in the Chair.

Present : All the mem bers w ho attended the preceding meeting

Secretary : M. R o m e i n .

Exam ination of the Annex to the Draft Convention (continued).

Article 5.

The Ch a i r m a n read the am endm ent submitted by the Polish delegation (see Annex 2 c).The amendment was rejected.

On the proposal of the C h a i r m a n , paragraph 5 was amended to read as follows :“ The scales m ust be clearly visible and attached to fixed points. They shall

be graduated for every two centimetres of effective draught, a special mark being made every ten centimetres. ”

This amendment was adopted.

M. M ü l l e r (Czechoslovakia) submitted an amendment relating to the number of scales in paragraph 2. He proposed th a t this number should not be limited to six, seeing tha t certain vessels not exceeding 90 metres in length occasionally required an additional scale a t the stern.

He suggested the paragraph should read " . . . these scales shall number at least sixM. B a u l e (International Danube Commission) supported this suggestion, bu t proposed

the following wording ;“ In the case of vessels not more than 90 metres long, these scales shall number

at least six, of which two shall be in a plane situated near the mid-point of the length...

In th a t way full latitude was allowed to persons who wished to affix another scale, which was sometimes desirable. I t might very well happen tha t , in the case of a vessel of which the prow was entirely out of the water, and a considerable part of the hull as well, the scale in the fore-part of the vessel, which was placed one-third of the way along the side, would be out of the water and would not give any information.

This amendment was adopted.

M. R o m e i n suggested the following wording in paragraph 2 ; “ In the case of vessels more than 40 metres long, these scales shall number a t least six ”. He also proposed th a t the words “ more than 90 metres in length ” should be omitted in paragraph 3.

After discussion, this proposal was adopted.

M. F a l c e t t i (Italy) asked whether the length referred to in the second paragraph was the length mentioned in Article 9.

The C h a i r m a n replied in the affirmative, and proposed to insert a reference to the hull and read “ vessels the hull of which is more than 40 metres long ” .

Mr. D a n i e l (British Empire) pointed out th a t the first four paragraphs of the article only applied to vessels carrying goods. In the case of tugs and passenger vessels, however, the scales m ust be placed only a t the stem and the stern. Under these circumstances, he thought the fifth paragraph was no t inserted in the proper place.

M. B a u l e (International Danube Commission) stated th a t the tonnage-measurement scales were very often used as scales for recording the draught.

M. G e h l h a a r (Germany) considered th a t the tex t should be retained, b u t proposed that the words in the last sentence of paragraph 5 should read : “ a t the point of each scale ”,

Article 5 was adopted, with the amendments proposed.

Article 4 (continued).

The Ch a i r m a n read the tex t of Article 4 which had been prepared by M. Ryniker and M. Deval (see Annex 2 bb).

M. M ü l l e r (Czechoslovakia) desired tha t the words in the second paragraph “ in the form of a trapezium with rectilineal and curvilinear sides ” should be deleted. In his opinion, it would be better in general to employ the expression “ elements ” , since the extremities were not always of trapezoidal form.

M. B a u l e (International Danube Commission) considered th a t M. Müller’s objection would be met by employing the words “ in trapezoidal parts ” instead of saying “ in the form of a trapezium . . .

— 46 -

M. P o p e s c o (Roumania) did not consider it necessary to state th a t the horizontal surface was divided into trapeziums, for there were other methods, e.g., by means of triangles, which could be used for calculating a surface.

M. V i l f a n (Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes), said th a t the whole o b j e c t of establishing a uniform system for calculating surfaces was to get rid of differences d u e to the various methods employed.

The C h a i r m a n proposed the following wording to meet the wishes of M. Müller and M. Popesco :

“ The horizontal surface of each segment is divided into parts by lines normally drawn to the longitudinal axis of the vessel. ”

Similarly, in the last line of the same paragraph and in the third line of the fourth para­graph, the word “ trapeziums ” should be replaced by the word “ parts

This was agreed.

After a r e m a r k b y M. R o m e i n , it was decided to delete the word “ however ” in the third line of paragraph 5.

M. P o p e s c o (Roumania) said th a t he approved of the t e x t as it was drawn up, though he intended to submit a proposal to the plenary Committee suggesting tha t tonnage measurement by means of vertical planes should be permitted for a certain time.

M. V i l f a n (Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes) desired the Committee to fix there and then the transitional period during which the old certificates would remain valid.

The Ch a i r m a n read the passage from Article 3 of the 1898 Convention which provided for a period of five years. He wished to know if the Committee accepted this period in principle.

M. P o p e s c o (Roumania) said he was prepared to advise his Government to agree to a uniform system of tonnage measurement if the time-limit was fixed at ten years.

The C h a i r m a n asked M. Popesco whether it would n o t be possible for him to agree to five years.

It was decided to submit a proposal to the Conference suggesting that it should fix a transitory period of not less than five years.

Article 6 .

The C h a i r m a n said th a t the Roumanian delegation had submitted an amendment to this article to include fuel in the material indispensable for the navigation of the vessel (see Annex 2d).

M. P o p e s c o (Roumania) considered th a t fuel should be regarded as indispensable material,

M. v a n D r i e l (Netherlands) thought it difficult to adm it this material, for it was impossible to s tate accurately the amount of coal essential for the navigation of a vessel.

M. V i l f a n (Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes), M. R y n i k e r (Switzerland) and M. D e v a l (France) agreed with M. van Driel.

M. P o p e s c o (Roumania) said tha t they might state th a t t h e only fuel allowed would be th a t in the bunkers.

M. v a n D r i e l (Netherlands) pointed out t h a t bunkers could be fitted with movable bulkheads and that as a result their capacity varied.

M. G e h i .h a a r (Germany) said th a t the League of Nations Technical Committee had already examined this question and had come to the conclusion th a t fuel could not be included in the material indispensable for the working of the vessel.

M. d e D i e t r i c h (Hungary) agreed with the previous speaker.

It was decided not to include fuel in the material indispensable for the navigation of the vessel.

M. V i l f a n (Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes) desired to obtain particulars regarding the water ordinarily employed in the working of the vessel. Did th a t mean the water in the boilers or movable water ballast ? His view was th a t they should admit the water in the boilers and the condensers.

M. d e D i e t r i c h (Hungary) proposed the following wording for paragraph 3 :

“ 3. In addition, in the case of a vessel propelled by its own power, the water filling the tubes, condenser and the boilers up to the normal level, but not fuel or movable ballast. ”

— 47 —

M. P o p e s c o (Roumania) thought it would be better to keep the first draft.

M. V i l f a n (Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes), supported by M. B a u l e (In ter­national Danube Commission), thought tha t, to prevent disputes, this paragraph should be made perfectly clear.

The C h a i r m a n thought th a t the paragraph might be retained in its present form withwords “ or movable ballast ” a t the end.

This proposal was agreed to and the article adopted.

Article 7.

M. V i l f a n (Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes) desired t h e Committee to fix at once the distinguishing letters of the various States.

A list has been prepared (Annex 7, Addendum II) and will be submitted to the Conference.

The C h a i r m a n pointed out that, as a number of States were indicated by two letters, the last line of the article would have to be slightly amended and made to read : “ the last letter or letters of which shall indicate . . .

Article 7 was adopted, with this amendment.

Article 8.

M. V i l f a n (Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes), seconded by M. M ü l l e r (Czechoslovakia), proposed the deletion of the words “ as determined in Article 3 ” .

The C h a i r m a n considered th a t these words were indispensable.

M. V i l f a n (Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes) then asked th a t they should be replaced by the following : “ The level of maximum draught for w7hich the vessel has been measured and which shall be clearly indicated ” ,

The C h a i r m a n considered there was no real difference between the two texts.

M. V i l f a n (Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes) said he wished the reference to Article 3 to he deleted. T ha t article related solely to tonnage measurement, while the article they were discussing related to a m atter of supervision.

M. D e v a l (France) preferred the original text, which was more precise.

M. P o p e s c o (Roumania) agreed with the previous speaker.

M. R o m e i n asked M. Vilfan whether he wrould be satisfied if his remarks were entered in the Minutes.

M. V i l f a n (Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes) replied in the affirmative.

M. B a u l e (International Danube Commission) wished it to be clearly stated th a t when a line was used to indicate this level it was the lower edge of the line which should be taken.

Article 8 was amended accordingly and adopted.

Article 9.

The C h a i r m a n informed the Committee th a t M. van Driel had submitted an amendment proposing the deletion of the last part of sub-paragraph 9 (see Annex 2e). He wished to know whether the German proposal, which consisted in substituting the words “ m ay be replaced ” for “ shall be replaced ” , would satisfy M. van Driel.

M. v a n D r i e l (Netherlands) said tha t this would meet his wishes.

M. V i l f a n (Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes) desired paragraph 8 to be amended with a view to giving the definition of an unloaded vessel.

M. B a u l e (International Danube Commission) proposed the following wording :

“ The vertical distance between the level of the bottom of the vessel and the plane of the light-load-line as defined above, together with the crewr, the equipment, the depth of the water in the hold of the vessel and the weight of the water ordinarily employed in the working of the means of propulsion which had been accepted for the determination of the light-load-line as well as the position of the fixed ballast. ”

In reply to a question by M. F a l c e t t i (Italy), M. D e v a l (France) said tha t the vertical distance was reckoned from the level of the keelson of the vessel at its lowest point.

The C h a i r m a n proposed to meet M. Falcetti’s views by adding the words “ a t the lowest point. ”,

M. D e v a l (France) asked what w'as the precise import of the words “ may be replaced ”, which had been inserted in the last paragraph instead of the words “ shall be replaced ”.

— 48 -

M. G e h l h a a r (Germany) said th a t the object was to reserve the right not to give parti culars on the certificate in the case of vessels not engaged in carrying freight.

M. D e v a l (France) asked if the new wording would enable a Contracting State to insist on the production of a certificate containing the particulars in question in the e v e n t of a vessel entering its territory.

M. R o m e i n s a id t h a t , in h is o p in io n , t h e w o r d s “ m a y be ” w o u ld n o t e n t i t l e a State to r e q u i r e a c e r t i f i c a te g iv in g t h e s e p a r t i c u l a r s .

M. D e v a l (France) said that, under these circumstances, he desired th a t the words “ shall be replaced ” should be retained.

M. v a n D r i e l (Netherlands) urged the adoption of his amendment.

M. R o m e i n therefore proposed th a t two texts of the article should be submitted to the plenary Committee, one relating exclusively to vessels employed in carrying freight — in that instance the last part of paragraph 9 would be deleted — and the other referring to vessels not engaged in the carriage of goods as well. In the second case, the latter pa rt of th e para­graph would be retained. Here also it would be necessary to decide whether the words “ shall be replaced ” or “ may be replaced ” should be used.

The C h a i r m a n considered tha t the two expressions amounted to the same thing.

M. G e h l h a a r (Germany) asked for w hat purpose France desired these particulars in the case of tugs.

M. D e v a l (France) said tha t they were useful for statistical purposes.

M. G e h l h a a r (Germany) said th a t the paragraph in question referred mainly to tugs, T h a t type of vessel had always received special treatm ent and he asked th a t they should continue to receive such treatment.

M. P o p e s c o (Roumania) c o n s id e r e d t h a t p a r t i c u l a r s w e r e n e c e s s a r y , e v e n in th e case of tu g s .

M. B a u l e (International Danube Commission) agreed with the Chairman when he said t h a t the two expressions were equivalent, since, if the progressive displacement of the vessel starting from the plane of the light-load-line was not given, this information had to be supplied by giving the maximum displacement.

M. R o m e i n said that, if the words “ m ay be ” were employed, the authorities of a State would have to rest satisfied with the sta tem ent in the certificate either of the progressive displacement for each centimetre or else the maximum displacement.

The Committee finally agreed to adopt the words “ may be replaced ”.

On the suggestion of M. V i l f a n , it was decided to delete the words “ by decimetre or ” in the. first line of paragraph 9.

M. V i l f a n (Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes) desired th a t tonnage certificates should give particulars of the operations relating to the measurement of the vessel ; this would facilitate the work of verification and re-measurement.

The C h a i r m a n showed the Committee a certificate a t present in use and said tha t a certificate of this type gave every facility for checking the results.

The Committee agreed with the Chairman’s view.

M. M ü l l e r (Czechoslovakia) wished the words “ and the date of the certificate ” to he inserted in paragraph 2 .

T h e C h a i r m a n p o i n t e d o u t t h a t c e r t i f i c a te s w e r e i n v a r i a b l y d a t e d , b u t he h a d n o o b jec t io n

t o t h e t e x t o f p a r a g r a p h 2 b e in g s u p p l e m e n t e d a s su g g e s te d .

This proposal was adopted.

M. R o m e i n said th a t the Drafting Committee desired the words “ on a vessel being re­measured ” to be replaced by the words “ on the measurement of a vessel being revised • This tex t would be submitted to the Conference and the latter would decide.

The Technical C om m ittee accordingly decided to s u b m it two texts of Article 9 to the Conference.

Articles 10 and 11 and the Forms reproduced in Addendum I.

These texts were adopted without modification.

— 49 —

FO U R T H MEETING.

Held on November 26th, 1925, at 3.30 p.m.

M. B o u c k a e r t in the Chair.

Present : All the members who attended the preceding meeting and also M. P a r f e n o f f (U.S.S. R.), bu t excepting M. Müller (Czechoslovakia), who was replaced by M . P r o c h a z k a .

Secretary : M. R o m e i n .

Measurement of T ugs : General Discussion.

M. B a u l e (International Danube Commission) drew the attention of the Committee to the fact th a t the definition of tonnage measurement might prove to be of great importance in regard to tugs. On the Danube, for example, Article 18 of the Danube Statute provided that any duties levied in future on shipping would have to be assessed on the basis of the tonnage of the vessel. If the Convention were signed as a t present provided, the riparian States, when calculating the duties, would be compelled to take account exclusively of the tonnage- measurement definition laid down in tha t instrument, i.e., they would be compelled to take the tonnage in metric tons as the basis of the charges. While this method worked equitably in the case of cargo carriers, it did not give similar results as regards tugs and passenger vessels. If this method were employed, tugs and passenger vessels would be assessed either on their displacement or their dead-weight capacity, and this wrould lead to inequalities in treatment. As tonnage had to be taken on the Danube as the basis for assessing the tax, it would appear to be desirable to adopt a special provision for the definition of the tonnage of tugs and passenger vessels so as to allow a little elasticity in assessing the charges.

M. V i l f a n (Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes) agreed with M. Baule.

M. D e v a l (France) wished to explain the amendments proposed by the French delegation (see Annex 3a). He had noticed in the course of previous discussions th a t the method of tonnage measurement laid down for cargo-carriers was apparently too difficult to be applied to tugs. He had therefore prepared a formula providing tha t tugs could be measured from the plans of construction. Article 4 as at present worded consisted of two parts, the first of which— this had not been modified in any way — referred to vessels carrying freight, and the second to other vessels. He had tried to discover an approximate method for measuring these latter vessels which would be generally acceptable. He had proposed th a t the displacement corre­sponding to a water-line might be computed by taking the product of the three dimensions defined in the text, this product being multiplied by a coefficient (75 hundredths) depending on the shape of the vessel. Since there was no need to ascertain the displacement of tugs for every centimetre of draught, he desired th a t the two volumes relating to the light-load-line and the maximum displacement as defined in Article 3 should alone be mentioned in Article 9 when dealing with tugs. In accordance with these views, he desired to amend the text of Article 1, which had already been adopted, and to propose the deletion of the words “ by measurements made on the vessel itself ” . Though it was necessary th a t this work should actually be performed on cargo-carriers, the case was different with tugs and passenger vessels. It was quite enough if the dimensions were indicated on the plans of construction.

Moreover, there appeared to be a certain amount of doubt as to the meaning to be given to the word “ displacement ”. A number of delegates had taken the word to refer to displace­ment in weight ; others to displacement in volume. He therefore suggested tha t the followingsentence should be added to Article 2 :

“ The operations referred to in Articles 3 and 4 below shall determine displace­ments reckoned as a volume. ”

In this way there could be no confusion.Finally, he proposed to delete from the Preamble the words, “ In the following articles

the vessel is assumed to be floating in fresh waterHe considered th a t it wTould be enough to state in Article 6 th a t the light-load-line would

be the plane of the vessel floating in fresh water.

Mr. D a n i e l (British Empire) accepted the modifications proposed by M. Deval. Hethought, however, th a t the tex t was rather too long.

M. P o p e s c o (Roumania) also supported the proposals of the French delegation provided they could be clearly worded.

M. F a l c e t t i (Italy) thought it would be desirable to distinguish between tugs andpassenger vessels. He therefore proposed to fix two coefficients — one for tugs, the otherfor passenger boats.

4

— 50 —

M. V i l f a n (Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes) accepted the French delegation’s proposals in principle. So far as he was concerned, however, he thought it unnecessary to mention tugs and passenger vessels in paragraph (b). He therefore desired the deletion of the words in parenthesis in this sub-paragraph — “ tugs and passenger vessels ”, p[e was also in favour of some latitude being given to the Commissions ; the latter should not have their hands tied by the Convention.

M. P o p e s c o (Roumania) approved of the Italian delegation’s observations. Two coeffi­cients of fineness should be prepared, one for tugs and the other for passenger boats.

M. B a u l e (International Danube Commission) considered th a t the French delegation’s d raft taken with the Italian delegation’s amendment was entirely satisfactory. He wished however, to know whether, if this formula was adopted, the duties levied on shipping would ensure equitable trea tm ent for all vessels.

M. D f . v a l (France) felt convinced tha t it would.

Mr. D a n i e l (British Empire) stated that, if a distinction was to be made between tugs and passenger vessels, they should keep in mind th a t the latter as a rule had quarters for passengers on the deck, while there was no similar superstructure on tugs.

M. G e h l h a a r (Germany) accepted the French delegation’s proposals, subject to amend­ments being introduced on points of detail.

M. R y n i k e r (Switzerland) asked M. Deval whether he thought th a t the light-load-line was the same as the line defined in Article 6 . If so, he supported the French delegation’s proposals. Moreover, he thought th a t separate coefficients prepared from the designs should be worked out for each vessel.

M. d e D i e t r i c h (Hungary) stated th a t the coefficient chosen by the French delegation was 75 hundredths for all vessels. M. Ryniker, on the other hand, wanted individual coefficients in which case the Swiss delegation’s proposal would prevent any injustice being done. At the same time, he supported M. Vilfan’s suggestion to omit the words “ tugs and passenger vessels ” from the sub-paragraph in Article 4. He also wished to make a suggestion which he thought would simplify their work. The French delegation proposed the following tex t in Article 9:

“ For vessels which are not employed in carrying freight, these particulars shall be replaced by particulars of the light-load-line defined in Article 6 and the maximum displacement referred to in Article 3 above. ”

In his opinion, there was no great difference between the light-load-line and the line of maximum draught. I t would be sufficient for them to calculate the light-load-line and draw the curve of the draught. Calculations based on draught were the most accurate and simplest method of tonnage measurement.

M. D e v a l (France) thought th a t this method would lead to great difficulties in the event, for example, of a ship’s papers being lost.

M. v a n D r i e l (Netherlands) stated th a t the French proposals did not entirely satisfy his requirements. He referred to his amendment (see Annex 3a.)

M. V i l f a n (Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes) was in favour of a single coefficient for tugs and passenger vessels alike.

In reply to M. Baule’s question relating to the equality of treatm ent given to all vessels, he stated th a t his own opinion was tha t equality of this kind was impossible by a system based on the metric ton. He thought the formula in Article 4, paragraph (b), too vague : “ . .. their displacement, corresponding to a given load-line . . . ” H e accordingly desired this expression to be deleted.

M. R o m e i n stated th a t the passage had been inserted to meet the special position on the Danube.

M. D e v a l (France) asked the Netherlands delegate why he was unable to accept the proposals of the French delegation. He wished to know if the reason was th a t the displacement was determined above the light-load-line. If th a t wras his reason it would be easy to amend Article 9 and indicate th a t the displacement was determined by the light-load-line up to the level of maximum draught.

In th a t case the sub-paragraph would be worded as follows :

“ The progressive displacement of the vessel for each centimetre of draught starting from the level of the light-load-line ; in the case of vessels not employed in carrying freight, these particulars shall be replaced by those relating to the light- load-line defined in Article 6 and the displacement between the line of maximum draft referred to in Article 3 above and the light-load-line. ”

M. v a n D r i e l (Netherlands) said th a t he accepted the new draft. However, if they wished to allow for the shape of the various vessels, they would have to take the area of the hligt-load plane instead of the product of the length and the breadth. They would therefore have to choose another coefficient than th a t — i.e., 75 hundredths — proposed by the French delegation.

— 51 —

He therefore suggested th a t they should insert the words “ the area of the given water- l i n e plane ” in paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 4 (b).

M. P a r f e n o f f (U.S.S.R .) stated th a t the Russian delegation was in complete agreement with the French proposals relating to Articles 2, 4, 6 an d 9. As regards the second alternative in Article 3, he wished to be more precisely informed. The various regulations differed as regards both draught and freeboard.

M. D e v a l (France) thought it difficult to give precise rules regarding draught. When determining the part of the vessel on which measurements were to be taken, the freeboard regulations would always override the draught regulations.

M. P a r f e n o f f (U.S.S.R .) then proposed th a t Article 3, paragraph 1, should be drafted as follows : “ The plane of maximum draught authorised by the freeboard regulations ” .

The C h a i r m a n pointed out th a t this tex t had already been adopted by the plenary Conference and th a t the question of freeboard might give rise to difficulties.

M. P a r f e n o f f (U .S .S .R .) withdrew his amendment.

Examination of the Annex to the Draft Convention (continued).

Article 4 (continued).

The first two paragraphs of this article were adopted.

Paragraph 3.

The C h a i r m a n pointed out th a t M. Vilfan had pu t forward a proposal to omit the words in parenthesis — “ tugs and passenger vessels

M. F a l c e t t i (Italy) asked whether passenger boats carrying freight would come under paragraph (a) or paragraph (b).

M. D e v a l (France) stated th a t a vessel carrying cargo, no m atter now small the quantity, would come under (a).

Moreover, his reason for putting the words “ tugs and passenger vessels ” in parenthesiswas to make sure th a t the rules referred to in (a) should not apply to these vessels.

M. d e D i e t r i c h (Hungary) thought th a t the words should be kept.

M. B a u l e (International Danube Commission) considered that, on the contrary, if they were to avoid inequalities in connection with the collection of charges, these words should be deleted.

It was decided to delete from (b) the words “ tugs and passenger vessels ” placed in parenthesis.

The C h a i r m a n stated th a t M. Vilfan had asked for precise statements ; he considered th a t the formula, “ it is agreed th a t their displacement corresponding to a given load-line . . . ” , was too vague.

M. D e v a l (France) pointed out th a t this was a theoretical explanation and tha t it held good for all displacements. Moreover, in Article 9 the plane was stated at which the operations should be performed.

M. V i l f a n (Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes) agreed with M. Deval. Article 9 made it clear th a t the displacements of the empty vessel should first be computed and then the displacement a t the maximum draft, both figures being given on the certificate.

M. R y n i k e r (Switzerland) asked whether it would not be clearer if this definition wasinserted in (b) of Article 4.

The C h a i r m a n requested M. Deval to prepare a new tex t of this paragraph which would take account of the observations made.

He asked the Committee to consider the question of the coefficient, which had been fixed at 75 hundredths by the French delegation.

M. v a n D r i e l (Netherlands) stated th a t he had proposed to replace the words :

“ 1. The length determined . . . ;“ 2. The maximum breadth . . . ; ”

by “ The area of the place of the water-line. ”

M. d e D i e t r i c h (Hungary) said th a t the length and the breadth had been taken to prevent the work from being too complicated.

M. R y n i k e r (Switzerland) agreed th a t the method recommended by M. van Driel was more accurate, bu t it had been thought better to adopt a system, giving approximate results, which would be simpler in practice.

— 52 —

M. v a n D r i e l (Netherlands) said th a t he had proposed this system with a view t o diffe­rentiating between vessels with straight sides and vessels with rounded sides.

The C h a i r m a n suggested th a t they should decide as to the coefficient, seeing tha t objec­tions had been made to 75 hundredths being taken.

On the proposal of the C h a i r m a n , it was decided to adopt 70 hundredths.

Paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 7 were adopted without modification.

The whole of Article 4 was adopted with the amendments indicated.

Article 9 (continued).

The C h a i r m a n read the amendment proposed by the French delegation in regard to Article 9, paragraph 9 (see Annex 3 a). He proposed to modify this amendment as follows :

“ . . . These particulars shall be replaced by those relating to the light-load- line defined in Article 6 and the displacement between the line of maximum draught referred to in Article 3 above and the plane of the water-line. ”

M. F a l c e t t i (Italy) asked the French delegate to make certain points clearer. In orderto determine the line of maximum draught, the system to be adopted would be given in each body of regulations. Would it be necessary to mention in the tonnage-measurement regulations the system to be employed ?

M. D e v a l (France) replied in the negative. The owner of a tug plying on navigable waterways in different countries would ascertain the various regulations and would have his vessel measured accordingly. The regulations referred to in Article 3 would give the necessary particulars.

Article 9, paragraph 9, was adopted, with the French amendment modified as above.

Pream ble of the Annex.

The C h a i r m a n pointed out th a t the French delegation proposed the abolition of the two lines in the Preamble ; “ In the following articles the vessel is assumed to be floating in fresh water The French delegation had taken account of this provision in the later articles.

The proposal of the French delegation was adopted.

Article 1 (continued).

The C h a i r m a n said th a t the French delegation proposed the deletion of the words “ by measurements made on the vessel itself

M. D e v a l (France) pointed out th a t the discussions on Article 4 showed th a t exceptions and definitions could best be inserted in th a t article.

The C h a i r m a n reminded the members th a t the proposed modification referred to the first alternative, the second having been dropped.

The French delegation’s proposal was adopted.

Article 2 (continued).

The C h a i r m a n stated th a t the French delegation proposed the addition of the words “ of tonnage or goods ” after the words “ in tons of 1 ,0 0 0 kilogrammes ”.

Mr. D a n i e l (British Empire) said tha t , if the Committee desired to retain the word “ ton­nage ”, it would be better if a qualifying word were used. He would be ready to accept the expression “ tonnage de jauge ” (register tonnage).

On the suggestion of M. V i l f a n (Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes), the Committee decided to replace the word “ tonnage ” by “ weight

The addition to Article 2 proposed by the French delegation was then read (see Annex 3 a).

M. D e v a l (France) stated th a t it was desirable to remove any doubt with regard to the word “ displacement ” . There could be either displacement in volume or d i s p l a c e m e n t in weight. Only displacement in volume could be selected, for this was the only d i s p l a c e m e n t which was invariable, irrespective of the medium for which their calculations were prepared. Assuming that all displacements would relate to volume, the parties concerned would have to be informed accordingly.

The amendment was adopted.

— 53 —

Article 3 (continued).

M. D e v a l (France) pointed out th a t the second alternative alone remained.

The French delegation's proposal to adopt the text of this alternative was agreed to ; the words “ the volume to be ascertained ” being replaced by “ the volume to be measured ” ,

Article 5 (continued).

On the suggestion of M. R o m e i n , supported by M. D e v a l (France), the words “ of actual displacement ” were deleted and replaced by “ vertically ” .

Article 6 (continued).

The French delegation’s amendment to this article was then read (see Annex 3 a).

This amendment was adopted.

Article 8 (continued).

M. G e h l h a a r (Germany) asked whether the particulars were to be indicated near all the marks or whether it would be sufficient to place them once on each side of the vessel beside the two scales.

M. D e v a l ( F r a n c e ) p o i n t e d o u t t h a t t h a t w a s t h e u s u a l p r a c t i c e .

During the discussion wdiich followed, _\i. G e h l a a r asked whether i t would not be better to provide for a single plate in the middle of the vessel. If the plate was affixed near the particulars as to draught on the stem and the stern of the vessel, he thought there was a risk of inaccurate information.

M. V i l f a n (Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes) thought these points of detail might be dealt with in the various regulations.

M. P o p e s c o (Roumania) thought th a t it would be sufficient to indicate these particulars once only and th a t they should be pu t a t the middle of the vessel.

M. D o b k e v i c i u s (Lithuania) asked w hat would be done if the scales were one-third of the way along the vessel’s side.

M. D e v a l (France) replied th a t the tonnage-measurement plate would be in the middle.

M. B a u l e (International Danube Commission) thought it would be a good idea to state on the certificate what was the scale reading to which the line of maximum displacement referred.

M. R y n i k e r (Switzerland) thought tha t.the practice a t present in force on the Rhine should not be departed from.

Moreover, he approved of the German delegate’s suggestion. For practical reasons, the tonnage-measurement plate should be left as it was a t present, and they should make it clear th a t it would be enough if the particulars were given on one pair of plates.

The C h a i r m a n considered th a t the present practice was apparently to put a tonnage- measurement plate on each side, and he read an extract from the Belgian regulations on this subject. The same s ta tem ent could be made of the Netherlands.

M. D e v a l (France) explained th a t the object of the tonnage-measurement plates was not to measure displacement. However, when these plates happened to be on the vessel, they were very convenient. When a line was used, they had the same difficulty as to the readings. It was, however, permissible to indicate the maximum displacement by a line. The purpose of the plate was to show that the vessel had been measured.

The Commission decided lo modify the first paragraph of Article 8 as follows :“ The line of maximum draught as determined in Article 3 shall be clearly

indicated on each side of the vessel by one or more tonnage-measurement lines or plates, the lower of which shall coincide with this level. ”

Article 9 (continued). Proposal by the Italian Delegation (see Annex 3a).

M. F a l c e t t i (Italy) stated th a t the Italian delegate’s amendment to paragraph 10 had been dropped, bu t th a t the delegation upheld its amendment to paragraph 8 of Article 9.

M. D e v a l (France) approved of the proposed modification by means of which the displace­ment of an unloaded vessel could be ascertained in the best manner possible, since it pro­vided for a mean reading. To make the proposal clearer, he would suggest the words “ a t the lower edge in the given section ”, i.e., a t the place where the scale had been put.

The Italian amendment was adopted in the following form :“ The average of the vertical distance between the bottom of the vessel at its

lowest point in the sections corresponding with the scales and the plane of the light- load-line. ”

— 54 —

M. F a l c e t t i (Italy) further proposed the addition to No. 5 of the words “ and the general length including the rudder (for locks) ”.

The C h a i r m a n pointed out th a t this was a question of official supervision and w a s not

of tonnage measurement.

M. F a l c e t t i w i t h d r e w h is p r o p o s a l .

Draft Convention on the M easurem ent of V essels employed in Inland Navigation(continued).

Article 4 (referred to the Committee by the Conference).

The C h a i r m a n said th a t the Conference had referred Article 4 to the Technical Com­mittee to ascertain its views as to the possibility of the ten-year period (date of tonnage certificate) being adopted for all vessels.

M. V i l f a n (Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes) stated th a t his intention hadbeen to make a distinction between wooden vessels and iron vessels and to prescribe a time­limit of five years for the former and ten years for the latter.

M. D e v a l (France) stated th a t in his country there wrere 20,000 wooden vessels andtheir re-measurement would be a long and laborious process. In practice there was no obli­gation to have them re-measured every five years or, indeed, every ten years.

M. P o p e s c o (Roumania) proposed th a t they should retain the period of ten years.

M. V i l f a n (Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes) agreed to this period and added

that, if a State could not force foreigners to agree to a shorter period, it would be free to make what arrangements it preferred in regard to its own vessels.

The period of ten years was retained.

Change of W eight of a Vessel.

M. F a l c e t t i (Italy) thought it might perhaps be advisable to include the change in the weight of a vessel among the conditions of re-measurement.

M. V i l f a n (Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes) stated that, in his remarks d u r i n g

the previous meeting, he had referred to the question of fixed ballast. In his draft amendment he had mentioned change in weight, bu t that was a t first sight a very difficult factor to estimate.

M. F a l c e t t i (Italy) said that, if a ship’s boiler were replaced by an oil engine, there would be a considerable difference in the vessel’s weight.

M. V i l f a n (Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes) stated th a t such a case might perhaps be dealt with better by bringing in another idea — th a t of the reconstruction or conversion of a vessel. He supported the Italian delegate’s suggestion.

M. D e v a l (France) thought that, even in the case mentioned by the Italian delegate, re-measurement was unnecessary. A ship was like a balance : any alteration in the weight of the ship would lead to its rising or sinking more in one place than in another, and, when empty, the zero point of all its scales would no longer be the same. The mean between the two readings would be taken and the difference would always give the weight of the cargo.

M. V i l f a n (Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes) objected to this th a t it was the light-load-line which would have changed.

After a discussion, it was decided to draft the beginning of Article 4 as follows :“ No Contracting State may demand re-measurement except in the case of

extensive repairs, important changes or alterations in the external or internal dimen­sions of the vessel, or . . .” .

Model of Uniform Certificate.

The Ch a i r m a n stated th a t the question of establishing a model uniform certificate applicable in all countries had been raised. If the Committee considered th a t a model of this kind should be introduced, he would like to know if the members thought tha t they could prepare it themselves.

After a short discussion, the Committee decided to approve of the principle of a uniform certificate, blit merely to submit a recommendation to this effect to the plenary Conference.

Closing Speeches.

The Ch a i r m a n declared the work of the Committee a t an end and thanked his co l leagues for the friendly spirit in which they had worked during the consideration of the various ques­tions ; in this way, they had obtained tangible results in a short space of time.

M. P o p e s c o (Roumania) sa id he w is h e d , on b e h a l f o f h is co l leagues , to t h a n k t h e C ha i rm an fo r t h e su c ce ss fu l w a y in w h ic h he h a d p r e s id e d o v e r t h e d isc u ss io n s .

— 55 -

LIST OF ANNEXES.

Page

1 _ Draft Convention on the Measurement of Vessels employed in Inland Naviga­tion submitted by the Sub-Committee for Inland N a v ig a tio n .............................. 56

la . Preamble to the Draft Convention :Amendment proposed by the French D e le g a t io n ........................................ 58Amendment proposed by the Serb-Croat-Slovene D e leg a t io n .................. 58

16. Article 1 of the Draft Convention :Amendment proposed by the Serb-Croat-Slovene D e l e g a t i o n .......... 58

1 c . Article 2 of the Draft Convention :Amendment proposed by the Roumanian D elegation ........................... 58Amendment proposed by the Serb-Croat-Slovene Delegation.............. 58

Id. Article 3 of the Draft Convention :Amendment proposed by the Serb-Croat-Slovene D e l e g a t i o n .......... 58

le. Article 5 of the Draft Convention :Proposal of the Belgian D e le g a t io n ............................................................. 59Amendment proposed by the Serb-Croat-Slovene D e l e g a t i o n .......... 59

1/ . Article 6 of the Draft Convention :Proposal of the Belgian Delegation............................................................... 59Amendment proposed by the Roumanian D elegation ........................... 59

2. Annex to the Draft Convention on the Measurement of Vessels employed inInland Navigation, submitted by the Sub-Committee for Inland Navigation. 59

2a . Article 3 of the Annex to the Draft Convention :Amendment proposed by the Netherlands Delegation........................... 63

2b . Article 4 of the Annex to the Draft Convention :Amendment proposed by the Swiss Delegation........................................ 63Amendment proposed by the Netherlands Delegation........................... 63Text proposed by the French D e l e g a t i o n ................................................. 63Text proposed by the Roumanian D e le g a t io n ........................................ 63

2bb . Article 4 of the Annex to the Draft Convention :Text proposed by M. Ryniker and M. D e v a l ............................................ 64

2c. Article 5 of the Annex to the Draft Convention :Amendment proposed by the Polish D e le g a t io n ................................... 64

2d . Article 6 of the Annex to the Draft Convention :Amendment proposed by the Roumanian D elegation ........................... 64

2e . Article 9 of the Annex to the Draft Convention :Amendment proposed by the Netherlands Delegation........................... 64

3. Annex to the Draft Convention on the Measurement of Vessels employed inInland Navigation :Text adopted by the Technical C o m m i t t e e ........................................... 64

3a. Amendments to the Text of the Annex to the Draft Convention as adopted by the Technical Committee :Text proposed by the French D e le g a t io n ............................................................. 67Text proposed by the Netherlands D elegation .................................................... 67Text proposed by the Italian D e le g a t io n ............................................................. 6 8

4 . Draft Convention on the Measurement of Vessels employed in Inland Navigation :Text adopted by the Drafting C om m ittee ............................................... 6 8

4a. Amendments to the Text of the Draft Convention as adopted by the DraftingCommittee :Text proposed by the German D e l e g a t i o n ......................................................... 70Text proposed by the French D e le g a t io n ............................................................. 70

5 . Draft Protocol of Signature :Text adopted by the Drafting C om m ittee ............................................... 70

6 . Text of Articles of the Convention and of the Provisions of the Protocol ofSignature as submitted to the Conference on November 27th, 1925 . . . . 71

6 a . Protocol of Signature :Text adopted by the C o n fe rence ................................................................ 71

6 a a . Protocol of Signature :Amendment proposed by the German D e l e g a t i o n .............................. 71

7 . Convention on the Measurement of Vessels employed in Inland Navigation :Text adopted by the C onfe rence ................................................................ 72

8 . Recommendation adopted by the Conference and inserted in the Final Act . . . . 79

— 56 —

Annex 1.

DRAFT CONVENTION REGARDING THE MEASUREMENT OF VESSELS EM PLOYED IN INLAND NAVIGATION, SUBMITTED BY TH E SUB- COMMITTEE FOR INLAND NAVIGATION.

P r e a m b l e .

The Contracting States, being desirous of abolishing any form of compulsory re-measure­m ent of vessels a t their frontiers and of thereby promoting international communication by means of vessels employed in inland navigation, agree to the following provisions, which are intended to ensure the reciprocal recognition of tonnage certificates.

Article 1.

Tonnage certificates issued by the competent authorities of one of the Contracting States, in virtue of regulations in accordance with the provisions of the present Convention and the Annex thereto (Annex 2), shall, to the exclusion of all others, be accepted by the autho­rities of the other Contracting States as being equivalent to the certificates issued by the said States in accordance with the same rules.

Article 2.

As a temporary measure and until such time as it may be possible to effect the unification of methods of tonnage measurement, certificates drawn up in accordance with the rules of measurement and calculation contained in the Brussels Convention of February 4th, 1898, the Agreement of 1913 between Germany and Austria-Hungary and the Roumanian Regula­tions of 1923 shall, for the purposes of the present Convention, be regarded as equivalent to those which m ay be issued under the conditions provided for in Article 4 of the above- mentioned Annex.

Article 3.

The Contracting States undertake to apply in their territory, within six months of the coming into force of the present Convention, under the conditions laid down in Article 12, the regulations they have individually drawn up for the execution of the provisions of the present Convention and the Annex thereto ; they shall communicate to each other the said regulations three months before their application ; any subsequent modification in these regulations shall be communicated within the same period.

Article 4.

The Contracting States undertake to measure in their territories any vessel in respect of which a request to this effect is made. The same provision shall apply to the re-measure- m ent of any vessel in respect of which the request is made and which is covered by the terms of Article 5.

Article 5.

No Contracting State may demand re-measurement unless in the case of extensive repairs or of alterations in the dimensions of the vessel. Such re-measurement may only be effected in accordance with the general administrative regulations applicable throughout the whole territory of the said State to vessels measured.

Article 6 .

I t is understood th a t any Contracting State in the territory of which charges on naviga­tion are, a t the date of the coming into force of the present Convention, levied on the basisof the registered ton may, at the moment of signing the present Convention or acceding thereto,request th a t vessels employed in inland navigation which are subject to such charges should be provided with a supplementary tonnage certificate giving the tonnage in registered tons ; in th a t case, such certificate will be accepted by the authorities of the State in question as equivalent to those issued by those authorities under the same system.

Article 7.

The competent Government department of each .of the Contracting States shall forward quarterly to the departm ent of the other Contracting State concerned :

1. The list of the vessels re-measured by its officials and last measured by theofficials of the said Contracting State ; this list shall be accompanied by the tonnagecertificates withdrawn on re-measurement.

2. A list of the vessels of which the last tonnage certificate is registered in the said Contracting State and of which the name or official title has been altered.

— 57 —

Lists shall be drawn up in accordance with Forms 1 and 2 annexed to the present C onvention (Annex 2, Addendum).

The registration offices of the various Contracting States may, when information is urgently required, correspond direct with each other.

For this purpose, States shall communicate to each other a list of their various registra­tion offices, the distinguishing letters of these offices, and the status of the officials a t the head 0f these offices. This list shall be kept up to date.

Article 8 .

In the event of a measured vessel being destroyed in the territory of one of the Contract­ing States, the competent departm ent of th a t State shall, within three months of the date on which it learned of the circumstance, duly notify the registration office concerned, and the tonnage certificate shall be returned to th a t office.

Article 9.

The present Convention shall bear this day ’s date and shall be open for signature u n t i l . . . by any State invited to t h e . . . Conference.

Article 10.

The present Convention shall be subject to ratification. The instruments of ratification shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the League of Nations, who shall notify (heir receipt to all the signatory or acceding States.

Article 11.

A fte r . . . , the present Convention m ay be acceded to by any State Member of the League of Nations or any State invited to the Conference and referred to in Article 9.

Accession shall be effected by an instrument communicated to the Secretary-General of the League of Nations, to be deposited in the archives of the Secretariat. The Secretary- General shall a t once notify such deposit to all the signatory and acceding States.

Article 12.

The present Convention shall not come into force until it has been ratified by five States. The date of its coming into force shall be the ninetieth day after the receipt by the Secretary- General of the League of Nations of the fifth ratification. Thereafter it shall take effect in the case of each Par ty ninety days after the receipt of its ratification or of the notification of its accession.

In compliance with the provisions of Article 18 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, the Secretary-General shall register the present Convention upon the day of its coming intoforce.

Article 13.

A special record shall be kept by the Secretary-General of the League of Nations showing which of the Parties have signed, ratified, acceded to or denounced the present Convention. This record shall be open to the Members of the League a t all times ; it shall be published as often as possible, in accordance with the directions of the Council.

Article 14.

The present Convention may be denounced by any one of the Parties on the expiration of a period of five years, reckoned from the date of its coming into force in respect of that Party. Notification of denunciation shall be given by an instrument in writing addressed to the Secretary-General of the League of Nations. Copies of this notification, advising all the other Parties of the date on which it was received, shall be forwarded to them immediately bv the Secretary-General.

The denunciation shall become effective one year after the date of the receipt of the instrument of denunciation by the Secretary-General, and shall operate only in respect of the State in question.

Article 15.

The revision of the present Convention m ay be demanded a t any time by at least one- third of the Contracting States.

W ithout prejudice to the provisions of the foregoing paragraph, Articles 2 and 6 of the Convention and Article 4 of the Annex thereto shall, unless the said articles have already been revised, be subjected to further consideration by the Contracting States on the expiration °f a period of ten years from the date of the coming into force of the Convention.

— 58 —

Annex la.

PREAMBLE TO TH E DRAFT CONVENTION.

A m e n d m e n t p r o p o s e d b y t h e F r e n c h D e l e g a t i o n .

The Contracting States, considering tha t international communications by m ean s of vessels employed in inland navigation would be considerably improved by the abolition of all obligatory re-measurement a t frontiers, agree to the following provisions, which are intended to ensure the reciprocal recognition of tonnage-measurement certificates.

A m e n d m e n t p r o p o s e d b y t h e S e r b -C r o a t -S l o v e n e D e l e g a t i o n .

The Contracting States, being desirous of facilitating international communications on inland waterways which connect two or more States and are not subject to the control of an International River Commission, agree upon the following provisions, which are intended to abolish obligatory re-measurement a t frontiers and to ensure reciprocal recognition of tonnage certificates.

Annex l b .

ARTICLE 1 OF TH E DRAFT CONVENTION.

A m e n d m e n t p r o p o s e d b y t h e S e r b -C r o a t - S l o v e n e D e l e g a t i o n .

Tonnage certificates issued by the competent authorities of one Contracting State, in accordance with the regulations in force in the countries to which the vessel is proceeding, shall be accepted by the authorities of the other Contracting States as being equivalent to the certificates issued by the said States in accordance with the same rules.

Annex 1 c.

ARTICLE 2 OF TH E DRAFT CONVENTION.

A m e n d m e n t p r o p o s e d b y t h e R o u m a n i a n D e l e g a t i o n .

The Contracting States undertake to adopt, as the method of measuring the tonnage of river craft, one of the three methods of calculation contained in the Brussels Convention of February 4th, 1898, in the Agreement of 1913 between Germany and Austria-Hungary, and in the Roumanian Regulations of 1893. Certificates drawn up in accordance with the rules of measurement and calculation of one of these three methods shall alone be regarded as equivalent to those which may be issued under the conditions laid down in Article 4 of

the above-mentioned Annex.

A m e n d m e n t p r o p o s e d b y t h e S e r b -C r o a t -S l o v e n e D e l e g a t i o n .

As a temporary measure, until such time as it m ay be possible to effect the unification of tonnage measurement, the only rules of measurement and calculation employed shall be those laid down by :

1. The Brussels Convention of February 4th, 1898 ;2. The Agreement of 1913 between Germany and Austria-Hungary ;3. The Roumanian Regulations of 1923 ;4. The “ Moorsom ” system of measurement.

Annex id .

ARTICLE 3 OF TH E DRAFT CONVENTION.

A m e n d m e n t p r o p o s e d b y t h e S e r b -C r o a t - S l o v e n e D e l e g a t i o n .

For “ in their territory ” read " on the inland waterways defined in the Preamble and situated in their territory ”.

— 59 -

Annex le .

ARTICLE 5 OF TH E DRAFT CONVENTION.

P r o p o s a l of t h e R e l g i a n D e l e g a t i o n .

New Paragraph.

Contracting States which consider it necessary to determine the tonnage of a vessel in registered tons shall be entitled to carry out additional measurements for th a t purpose.

A m e n d m e n t p r o p o s e d r y t h e S e r r -C r o a t -S l o v e n e D e l e g a t i o n .

No Contracting State may demand re-measurement except in the case of extensive repairs, reconstruction or alteration in the weight of the vessel, or unless the information given in the certificate produced is found to be incorrect or is disputed by those loading or receiving the cargo.

Re-measurement may further be effected in accordance with administrative regulations of a general nature, to which vessels measured in the whole or any part of the territory of a State are periodically subject.

Annex If.

ARTICLE 6 OF TH E DRAFT CONVENTION.

P r o p o s a l o f t h e B e l g i a n D e l e g a t i o n .

Delete Article 6 .

A m e n d m e n t p r o p o s e d r y t h e R o u m a n i a n D e l e g a t i o n .

Any Contracting State in the territory of which charges on navigation are, a t the date of the coming into force of the present Convention, levied on the basis of the registered ton, may request provisionally, pending the adoption of the metric ton as the basis for levying charges, th a t vessels employed in inland navigation . . .

Annex 2.

ANNEX TO T H E CONVENTION REGARDING THE TONNAGE MEASUREMENT OF VESSELS EM PLOYED IN INLAND NAVIGATION, AS SUBMITTED BY TH E SUB-COMMITTEE FO R INLAND NAVIGATION.

Article 1.

The object of tonnage measurement as defined in the present Annex is to determine, by means of measurements taken on the vessel itself, either the weight of the vessel or the weight of the cargo according to its draught.

As the total weight of a vessel is equal to the weight of the volume of water displaced by it, the weight of the cargo is equal to the weight of the volume of water displaced by the vessel when loaded minus the weight of the volume of water displaced by the vessel when empty.

Article 2.

The metric system only shall be employed in the tonnage measurement of vessels.All lineal measurements shall therefore be expressed in metres, decimetres and centi­

metres, volumes in cubic metres and cubic decimetres, and tonnage in tons of a thousand kilogrammes each and fractions of the same.

Article 3.

The volume to be measured is the external volume of the part of the hull included between:1. The plane passing through the line of maximum draught authorised by the

regulations for the various navigable waterways on which the vessel is to be employed ;2. A plane either a t the level of the light-load line, as hereinafter defined, or

at the level of the keelson of the vessel.

Article 4.

The part of the hull to be measured is divided by horizontal planes into segments in general one decimetre in height. When, however, the shape of the vessel allows, several segments may be taken together in making the calculation.

— 60 —

The quotient obtained by dividing the volume of a segment by the height of the segment expressed in centimetres is taken as the displacement of the vessel for each centimetre of draught within th a t segment.

Article 5.

Tonnage-measuring scales shall be placed, when required, symmetrically and in pairs on the sides of the vessel in vertical planes perpendicular to the axis.

In the case of vessels not more than 90 metres long, these scales shall number six —two in a plane situated near the mid-point of the length, and two in each of the planes situated on either side of the first, a t distances respectively equal to about one-third of the total length of the vessel.

In the case of vessels more than 90 metres in length, the number of scales shall exceedsix ; their position shall be fixed by analogy with the provisions of paragraphs 2 and 4

of the present article.In the case of vessels not exceeding 40 metres in length, the number of scales may be

reduced to four ; they are then placed in pairs, in planes situated a t points about one-thirdand two-thirds along the length of the vessel.

The scales m ust be clearly visible and attached to fixed points. They shall be graduated for a t least two and ten centimetres of effective draught ; zero shall be taken as the level of the light-load line or the level of the keelson of the vessel a t the point of the scale.

The height of the water-line above the lower level of the volume to be measured is taken as being equal to the arithmetical mean of the readings recorded on all the scales.

Article 6 .

The light-load line shall be regarded as the line corresponding to the position of the vessel when carrying only :

1. The gear, supplies and crew indispensable for the navigation of the vessel;2. W ater which cannot be removed from the hold by the usual methods of

pumping ;3. In addition, in the case of a vessel propelled by its own power, the water

ordinarily employed in its working, bu t not fuel.

Article 7.

The results of the tonnage measurement shall be shown in a certificate ; this certificateshall be entered under a serial number in a special register kept byr the office which shallbe set up for the purpose by each Contracting State for a definite area and which shall be described by special letters, the last of which shall indicate the State on whose territory the office in question is situated.

Article 8 .

The level of maximum draught as determined in Article 3 shall be clearly indicated on each side of the vessel. This level, when indicated by tonnage plates, shall coincide with the lower edge of such plates.

The following particulars shall be engraved in clear and legible characters near each mark or on each plate :

1. The distinguishing letters of the office referred to in Article 7 ;2. The serial number certificate.

These particulars shall be marked in indelible characters on the most durable parts of the hull.

Article 9.

Every vessel the tonnage of which has been measured m ust be provided with its tonnagecertificate. This certificate shall show :

1. The office of registry referred to in Article 7 ;2. The distinguishing letters of the said office and the serial number of the certificate ;3. The name or the official title of the vessel ;4. The method of construction ;5. The extreme length (excluding rudder) and greatest breadth of beam ;6 . Particulars of the last tonnage certificate, if any, cancelled by the new tonnage

measurement ;7. Where necessary, the number, position and description of the scales, and particularly

the position selected for zero ;8 . The vertical distance between the level of the keelson of the vessel and the plane

of the light-load line as defined above, together with the crew, the equipment and the depth of the water in the hold of the vessel which have been accepted for the determination of the light-load line ;

— 61 —

9. The progressive displacement of the vessel for each decimetre or centimetre of draught starting from the level of the light-load line ; in the case of vessels not employed in carrying freight, these particulars shall be replaced by a sta tem ent of the displacement a t the point 0f maximum draught referred to in Article 3 above.

Article 10.

On a vessel being re-measured, the old inscriptions and marks, and, if necessary, the tonnage-measurement plates and scales, shall be removed, and they shall be replaced as in the case of a first measurement.

At the same time, the old tonnage certificate shall be withdrawn.

Article 11.

If the name or official title of a vessel is altered, the fact shall be mentioned on the tonnage certificate by a representative duly authorised for the purpose. This note shall be dated and signed.

F o r m I.

Vessels re-measured in

Addendum.

1 during the .................... quarter of the year last measured in

SERIAL

NUMBER.

l

NAME OR

OFFICIAI. TITLE

OF VESSEL.

LETTERS and NUMBER

of the previous

Entry.

a

TONNAGE

entered in the Cancelled

Certificate.

4

LETTERS and NUMBER

of new

Entry.

TONNAGE

entered in new

Certificate.

<!

DATE

OF

RE-MEASUREMENT

i

REMARKS.

8

F o r m II. Addendum (con tin ued)

Vessels entered in ......................... 1 which have changed hands, or the name or official title of which has been altered, during the quarter of the year

SERIAL

NUMBER.

1

PREVIOUS NAME or

OFFICIAL TITLE of the Vessel.

•2

NEW NAME

or NEW OFFICIAL

TITLE.

3

LETTERS and

NUM BER of

Entry.

4

NAME and PLACE of residence of Agent

by whom the Certificate was modified.

5

DATE

OF

MODIFICATION.

6

REM ARKS.

7

.................................................’ Give nam e of S ta te .

— 63 -

Annex 2a.

ARTICLE 3 OF T H E AN NEX TO TH E DRAFT CONVENTION.

A m e n d m e n t p r o p o s e d r y t h e N e t h e r l a n d s D e l e g a t i o n .

Insert between lines 3 and 4, after the word “ employed ”, the words “ or, in the case0f vessels not used for the carriage of freight ;

“ The plane a t a distance of 30 cm. below the main deck, and, if the sides of the shipare fitted with scuttles, the plane a t the base of the lowest scuttle ”, and

“ 2 . etc . . .

Annex 2b.

ARTICLE 4 OF T H E A N N EX TO TH E DRAFT CONVENTION.

A m e n d m e n t p r o p o s e d r y t h e S w i s s D e l e g a t i o n .

The method of calculating the volume shall be as follows :

(a ) For vessels employed in carrying freight :“ The volume between the plane of maximum draught and the light-load line (Article 6 )

stall be calculated by means of division vertically into a number of horizontal segments ; in order to obtain sufficient accuracy the distance between the said segments shall not exceed 10 centimetres. When, however, the shape of the vessel allows, several segments may be taken together in making the calculation. For calculating the surface of the said segments, the length of the vessel shall be divided into three parts, namely, the central portion of the hull, approximately rectangular in form, and the forward and after ends.

“ Each part shall be divided by a t least five ordinates into four parts, and the surface of each part shall be calculated by the use of the first rule of the Simpson formula (based on a parabola of the second class). The mean of two consecutive segments multiplied by the dis­tance between segments shall be taken as the volume of a segment. The total sum of the volumes of the segments between the plane of maximum draught and the light-load line shall give the to ta l carrying capacity of the vessel.

“ The quotient obtained by dividing the volume of a segment by the distancein centimetres between segments shall be taken as giving the displacement of the vessel for each centimetre of draught within tha t segment. ”

A m e n d m e n t p r o p o s e d b y t h e N e t h e r l a n d s D e l e g a t i o n .

Insert in the tex t proposed by the Swiss delegation, after the words “ on the basis of a parabola of the second-class ” , the following :

“ Wrhen the length of th a t part of the vessel which is approximately rectangular, as mentioned in the preceding paragraph, is greater than two-thirds of the total length of the vessel measured along the light-load line, three ordinates shall be sufficient to calculate the volume of the forward end in the case of motor-vessels driven by one or more propellers. In the case of vessels which are not driven by propellers and which have a hull similar in shape below the water-line, the after end may be calculated in the same manner. ”

T e x t p r o p o s e d b y t h e F r e n c h D e l e g a t i o n .

The part of the hull to be measured is divided by horizontal planes into segments generally one decimetre in height.

The horizontal surface of each segment shall be divided into trapezoids by ordinates perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the vessel. In the central portion, approximately rectangular in form, the number of these trapezoids shall be a t least four. At the forward and after ends, the height of the trapezoids shall not exceed one metre ; their number may vary in different segments.

In the calculation of the surfaces, the use of the Simpson formula or of other formulas giving a t least an equal degree of accuracy is compulsory for the purpose of ascertaining the areas of the surfaces bounded by the curves.

The volume of a segment is obtained by multiplying the mean of the areas of the upper and lower sections by the distance between them ; when, however, the shape of the vessel Permits, several segments may be grouped together for purposes of calculation.

The quotient obtained by dividing the volume of a segment by the height of a segment expressed in centimetres is taken as the displacement of the vessel for each centimetre of taught within the height of th a t segment.

T e x t p r o p o s e d r y t h e R o u m a n i a n D e l e g a t i o n .

The general method of calculating the volume of river craft shall be to add together toe volumes obtained by dividing the vessels into several segments either horizontal or vertical,

— 64 —

by means of suitably chosen horizontal or vertical planes, a t a sufficient distance from each other to reproduce as exactly as possible the shape of the vessel to be measured.

Special regulations giving details as to the calculation, based on the above m eth od 0f the volume of the various types of vessels employed in different countries, shall be drawn m by each of the Contracting States, which shall communicate them to each other.

Annex 2b b.

ARTICLE 4 OF TH E AN N EX TO TH E DRAFT CONVENTION.

T e x t p r o p o s e d b y M. R y n i k e r a n d M. D e v a l .

The part of the hull to be measured is divided by horizontal planes into segments in general

one decimetre in height.The horizontal surface of each segment is divided into trapezoids with rectangular or I

curved sides by lines normally perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the vessel. The central portion, approximately rectangular in form, and the forward and after ends shall each be divided into a t least four such trapezoids.

In the calculation of the surfaces, the use of the Simpson formula is compulsory for ascer-1 taining the areas of the surfaces bounded by the curves.

The extreme parts of the forward and after ends of the vessel, having a height not greater I than th a t of the adjoining trapezoids, may, if convenient, have their respective surfaces | calculated separately.

The volume of a segment is obtained by multiplying the mean of the areas of the upper I and lower sections by the height or distance between them ; when, however, the shape oïl the vessel permits, several segments may be grouped together for purposes of calculation.

The quotient obtained by dividing the volume of a segment by the height of the segment I expressed in centimetres is taken as the displacement of the vessel for each centimetre of| d raught within the height of th a t segment.

Annex 2c.

ARTICLE 5 OF THE A N N E X TO THE DRAFT CONVENTION.

Amendment p r o p o s e d b y t h e P o l i s h D e le g a t io n .

In the fourth paragraph, for “ 40 ” read “ 55

Annex 2d.

ARTICLE 6 OF THE AN N EX TO T H E DRAFT CONVENTION.

A m e n d m e n t p r o p o s e d b y t h e R o u m a n i a n D e l e g a t i o n .

At the end of the first paragraph add : " . . . and also the fuel necessary for its own! propulsion

Annex 2e.

ARTICLE 9 OF THE A N N E X TO THE DRAFT CONVENTION.

Amendment proposed b y t h e N e t h e r l a n d s D e le g a t i o n .

Delete the words in the ninth paragraph : “ In the case of vessels not employed in carrying freight, these particulars should be replaced by those relating to the light-load line a t the linfl of maximum draught defined in Article 3 ”.

Annex 3.

AN N EX TO TH E DRAFT CONVENTION REGARDING TONNAGE MEASUREMEM OF VESSELS EMPLOYED IN INLAND NAVIGATION.

T e x t a d o p t e d b y t h e T e c h n i c a l C o m m i t t e e .

Preamble.

In the following articles the vessel is regarded as floating in fresh water.

— 65 —

Article 1 (Alternative 1 ).

The object of measurement as defined in the present Annex is to determine, by measure, ments taken on the vessel itself, either the weight of the vessel or the weight of the cargo- according to its draught,

As the total weight of a vessel is equal to the weight of the volume of water displaced by it, the weight of the cargo is equal to the weight of the volume of water displaced by the vessel when loaded minus the weight of the volume of water displaced by the vessel when empty.

Article 1 (Alternative 2).

The object of measurement as defined in the present Annex is to determine, by measure­ments taken on the vessel itself, the weight of the vessel, according to its draught.

As the total weight of a vessel is equal to the weight of the volume of water displaced by it, the weight of the cargo is equal to the weight of the volume of water displaced by the vessel when loaded minus the weight of the volume of water displaced by the vessel when empty.

Article 2.

The metric system only shall be employed in the measurement of vessels.All lineal measurements shall therefore be expressed in metres, decimetres and centimetres,

volumes in cubic metres and cubic decimetres, and tonnage in tons of a thousand kilogrammes each and fractions of the same.

Article 3 (Alternative 1).

In order to make it possible to determine the weight of the cargo, according to the draught,the volume to be measured m ust be the external volume of the part of the hull included between :

1. The plane passing through the line of the maximum draught authorised by the regulations for the various navigable waterways on which the vessel is to be employed ;

2. A plane a t the level of the light-load line as defined in Article 6 .

To obtain the weight of the vessel when empty, the volume measured should be the external volume of the portion of the hull included between :

1. The plane passing through the light-load line, and2. The plane passing through the keelson of the vessel.

To obtain the weight of the vessel corresponding to a given draught, the volume measured should be the external volume of the portion of the hull included between :

1. The plane a t the level of the given draught ; and2. The plane at the level of the keelson of the vessel.

Article 3 (Alternative 2).

The volume to be measured is the external volume of the part of the hull included between :1. The plane passing through the line of the maximum draught authorised

by the regulations for the various navigable waterways on which the vessel is to be employed ;

2. A plane either a t the level of the light-load line as hereinafter defined, or a t a level corresponding to the bottom of the vessel.

Article 4.

The pa rt of the hull to be measured is divided by horizontal planes into segments generally one decimetre in height. The horizontal surface of each segment is divided into parts by lines perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the vessel. The central portion, approxi­mately rectangular in form, and the forward and after ends shall each be divided into a t least four parts.

In the calculation of the surfaces, the use of the Simpson formula is compulsory for ascertaining the areas of the surfaces bounded by the curves.

The extreme parts of the fonvard and after ends of the boat, having a height a t least equal to th a t of the adjoining parts, may, if convenient, constitute parts whose surfaces may be calculated separately.

The volume of a segment is obtained by multiplying the mean of the areas of the upper and lower sections by the height or distance between them ; when the shape of the vessel permits, several segments may be grouped together in making the calculation.

The quotient obtained by dividing the volume of a segment by the height of the segment expressed in centimetres is taken as the displacement of the vessel for each centimetre of draught within the height of th a t segment.

Article 5.

The measuring scales shall be placed, when required, symmetrically and in pairs on the sides of the vessel in vertical planes perpendicular to the axis.

In the case of vessels more than 40 metres long, these scales shall number a t least six— two in a plane situated near the mid-point of the length and two in each of the planes

— 66 —

situated on either side of the first, a t distances respectively equal to about one-third of the total length of the vessel.

When the number of scales is more than six, their position shall be fixed by ana lo gy with the indications given in paragraphs 2 and 4 of the present article.

In the case of vessels not exceeding 40 metres in length, the number of scales may be reduced to four ; they are then placed in pairs, in planes situated a t points about one-third and two-thirds of the length of the vessel.

The scales m ust be clearly visible and attached to fixed points. They shall be graduated for every two centimetres of actual immersion, a special m ark being made every ten centi­metres ; zero shall be taken a t the level of the light-load line or a t the level corresponding to the bottom of the vessel a t the position of each scale.

The height of the water-line above the lower level of the volume to be measured is taken as being equal to the arithmetical mean of the readings recorded on all the scales.

Article 6 .

The light-load line shall be regarded as the line a t which the vessel floats in fresh water when carrying only :

1. The gear, stores and crew indispensable for the navigation of the vessel •2. W ater which cannot be removed from the hold by the usual methods of

pumping ;3. In addition, in the case of a vessel propelled by its own power, the water

ordinarily employed in its working, bu t not fuel or movable ballast.

Article 7.

The results of the measurement shall be shown in a certificate ; this certificate shall be entered under a serial number in a special register kept by the office which shall be set up for the purpose by each Contracting State for a definite area, and which shall be described bv distinguishing letters or numbers, the last letter or letters of which shall indicate the State on whose territory the office in question is situated.

Article 8 .

The level of maximum draught as determined in Article 3 shall be clearly indicated on each side of the vessel. This level, when indicated by lines or tonnage plates, shall coincide with the lower edge of such plates.

The following particulars shall be engraved in clear and legible characters near each mark or on each plate :

1 . The distinguishing letters of the office referred to in Article 7 ;2 . The serial number of the certificate.

These particulars shall be marked in indelible characters on the most durable parts of the hull.

Article 9.

Every vessel which has been measured must be provided with its measurement certificate. This certificate shall show ;

]. The office of registry referred to in Article 7 ;2. The distinguishing letters or numbers of the said office and the serial number

of the certificate ;3. The name or the official title of the vessel ;4. The method of construction ;5. The extreme length ofhull, not including the tiller, and greatest breadth of beam;6 . A reference, if necessary, to the last certificate, if any, which has been

cancelled by the new measurement ;7. Where necessary, the number, position and description of the scales, and

particularly the position selected for zero ;8 . The vertical distance between the level of the lowest points of the keelson

of the vessel and the plane of the light-load line as defined above, also the detailsregarding the crew, the equipment, the depth of the water in the hold of the vessel and the weight of the water normally used for the working of propelling machinery which have been accepted for the determination of the light-load line, and, lastly, the position of the fixed ballast.

9 (Alternative 1 ) . The progressive displacement of the v e s s e l for e a c h decimetre or centimetre of draught, starting from the level of the light-load line ; in the case of vessels not employed in carrying freight, these particulars may be replaced by information as to the displacement at the line of maximum draught referred to in Article 3 above.

9 (Alternative 2). The progressive displacement of the vessel for each centimetre of draught, starting from the level of the light-load line.

Article 10.

On a vessel being re-measured, the old inscriptions and marks and, if necessary, the measurement plates and scales shall be removed, and they shall be replaced as in the case of a first measurement.

At the same time, the old tonnage certificate shall be withdrawn.

- 67 —

Article 11.

If the name or official title of a vessel is altered, the fact shall be mentioned on the certi­ficate by an official duly authorised for the purpose. This note shall be dated and signed.

Annex 3a.

a m e n d m e n t s TO TH E T EX T OF TH E AN N EX TO THE DRAFT CONVENTION AS ADOPTED BY TH E TECHNICAL COMMITTEE.

T e x t p r o p o s e d b y t h e F r e n c h D e l e g a t i o n .

Preamble.Omit.

Article 1.

Omit the words : “ By measurements taken on the vessel itself ” ,

Article 2.Add a t the end :

“ The operations described in the following Articles 3 and 4 shall determine the displacements in volume.

“ The weights corresponding to the displacements in volume entered upon the measurement certificates shall be in each case the product of these displacements and the specific density of the water in which the draught as indicated by the scales is ascertained. ”

Article 3.Alternative 2.

Article 4.

(a) For vessels employed in carrying freight the measurements shall be taken on the vessel itself.

The part of the hull to be measured . . . ( text of Article 4 as adopted) . . .(b) For vessels not employed in carrying freight (tugs and passenger boats) it is agreed

that their displacement, corresponding to a given load-line, shall be represented by 75 hundredths of the product of the three following dimensions, relating to the external surface of the hull without taking into account any projecting parts :

1. The length determined by the distance between the two vertical planes per­pendicular to the longitudinal axis of the boat and the tangents to the curve of the plane corresponding to the load-line ;

2. The maximum breadth a t the load-line ;3. The average displacement measured by the vertical distance between the given

load-line and the lowest part of the hull in the transverse section corresponding with the mid-point of the length as defined in the above paragraph.

These three dimensions shall be ascertained either on the vessel itself or from its plans of construction.

Article 6 .

Alter the first paragraph to read as follows :

“ The light-load line shall be regarded as the line at which the vessel floats in fresh water when carrying only . . . ”

Article 9.

Alter paragraph 9 to read as follows :

“ 9. The progressive displacement of the vessel for each centimetre of draught, starting from the level of the light-load line ; in the case of vessels not employed in carrying freight, these particulars shall be replaced by those relating to the light- load line defined in Article 6 and the displacement a t the line of maximum draught defined in Article 3. ”

T e x t p r o p o s e d b y t h e N e t h e r l a n d s D e l e g a t i o n .

Article 9.

In the case of Articles 1, 3 and 9, Alternative 1 is withdrawn. In the case of Article 9, paragraph 9 (Alternative 2), the following words are added :

— 68 —

“ In the case of vessels not employed in carrying freight, the plane of maximum displacement shall be fixed a t a distance above the light-load line equal to half the distance measured between the light-load line and the lowest level of the surface of the main deck. The main deck is the deck which covers and entirely encloses the hold of the vessel. ”

T e x t p r o p o s e d b y t h e I t a l i a n D e l e g a t i o n .

Article 9.

Paragraph 5 to read as follows : “ The extreme length and greatest breadth, including rudder (for locks) ” .

Paragraph 8. Replace the words : “ The vertical distance between the level of the bottom of the vessel a t its lowest point and the light-load line ” by : “ The average vertical distance between the bottom of the vessel and the plane of the light-load line . . . ”

Paragraph 10. Add :

“ In the case of vessels not employed in carrying freight, these particulars shall, if necessary, be replaced by other particulars laid down in the regulations in force on the various navigable waterways over which the vessel is intended to pass.

“ The rules laid down in Article 4 shall be followed when undertaking any measurement of the volume between the plane of maximum displacement and the light-load line. ”

Annex 4.

DRAFT CONVENTION REGARDING TONNAGE MEASUREMENT OF VESSELSEM PLOYED IN INLAND NAVIGATION.

T e x t a d o p t e d b y t h e D r a f t i n g C o m m i t t e e .

Preamble.

The Contracting States, being of opinion th a t international communications by vessels employed in inland navigation would be considerably improved by the abolition of any form of compulsory re-measurement a t their frontiers, agree to the following provisions, which are intended to assure the «reciprocal recognition of measurement certificates.

Article 1.

Measurement certificates issued by the competent authorities of one of the Contracting States, in virtue of regulations in accordance with the provisions of the present Convention and the Annex thereto, shall, to the exclusion of all others, be accepted by the authorities of the other Contracting States as being equivalent to the certificates issued by the said States in accordance with the same rules.

Article 2 fformer Article 3 ).

The Contracting States undertake to apply in their territory, within six months of the coming into force of the present Convention, under the conditions laid down in Article 12, the regulations which they have individually drawn up for the execution of the provisions of the present Convention and the Annex thereto ; they shall communicate to each other the said regulations three months before their application ; any subsequent modification in these regulations shall be communicated within the same period.

Article 3 ( former Article 4).

The Contracting States undertake to measure in their territories any vessel in re sp e c t

of which a request to this effect is made. The same provision shall apply to the r e - m e a s u r e ­

m ent of any vessel in respect of which the request is made and which is covered by the terms of Article 4.

Article 4 (former Article b).

No Contracting State may demand the revision of measurement except in the case of extensive repairs, or alterations in the external or internal dimensions of the vessel, or unless the measurement certificate is more than ten years old. Such revision of measurementmav only be effected in accordance with administrative regulations which are generally ap p l icab le .

Article 5 (former Article 1).

The competent government departm ent of each of the Contracting States shall fo rw a rd

quarterly to the departm ent of the o ther Contracting State concerned :

1. The list of the vessels re-measured by its officials and last measured bv the officials of the said Contracting State ; this list shall be accompanied by the m e a s u re ­ment certificate withdrawn on re-measurement ;

— 69 —

2. A list of the vessels of which the last measurement certificate is registered in the said Contracting State and of which the name or official title has been altered.

Lists shall be drawn up in accordance with Forms I and II attached to the presentConvention.

The registration offices of the various Contracting States may, when information is urgently required, correspond direct with each other.

For this purpose, States shall communicate to each other lists of their various registration offices, the distinguishing letters of these offices, and the status of the officials a t the head of these offices. These lists shall be kept up to date.

Article 6 (former Article 8 /

In the event of a measured vessel being destroyed in the territory of one of the Contracting States, the competent department of th a t State shall, within three months of the date on which the fact is established, duly notify the registration office concerned, and the certificate shall be returned to th a t office.

Article 7 ( former Article 9).

The present Convention, of which the English and French texts shall be equally authentic, shall bear this d a y ’s date and shall be open for signature until October 1st, 1926, by any State invited to the Paris Conference.

Article 8 (former Article lOj.

The present Convention shall be subject to ratification. The instruments of ratification shall be forwarded to the Secretary-General of the League of Nations, who shall notify their receipt to all the signatory or acceding States.

Article 9 ( former Article 11 ).

After October 1st, 1926, the present Convention m ay be acceded to by any State invited to the Conference and referred to in Article 7, or by any State having a common frontier with one of these States.

Accession shall be effected by an instrum ent communicated to the Secretary-General of the League of Nations, to be deposited in the archives of the Secretariat. The- Secretary- General shall immediately notify such deposit to all the signatory and acceding States.

Article 10 ( new article).

Contracting States not Members of the League of Nations may, if they so desire, address their instruments of ratification or accession to the French Government, which shall deposit these instruments in its archives, and communicate copies of them to the Secretary-General of the League of Nations. The Secretary-General shall notify all the States which have signed or acceded to the Convention of the receipt of such communications.

Article 11 (former Article 12).

The present Convention shall not come into force until it has been ratified by five States. The date of its coming into force shall be the ninetieth day after the receipt by the Secretary- General of the League of Nations of the fifth ratification. Thereafter it shall take effect in the case of each of the Contracting States ninety days after the receipt of its ratification or of the notification of its accession.

In compliance with the provisions of Article 18 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, the Secretary-General shall register the present Convention upon the day of its coming into force.

Article 12 (former Article 1 3 /

A special record shall be kept by the Secretary-General of the League of Nations showing the States which have signed, ratified, acceded to or denounced the present Convention. This record shall be open at all times to the Members of the League and to any State invited to the Conference and referred to in Article 7 ; it shall be published as often as possible, in accordance with the directions of the Council.

Article 13 (former Article 14).

The present Convention may be denounced by any one of the Contracting States on the expiration of a period of five years, reckoned from the date of its coming into force in respect of tha t State. Notification of denunciation shall be given by an instrument in writing addressed either to the Secretary-General of the League of Nations, or, in the case of States availing themselves of the option accorded by Article 10, to the French Government, which shall communicate a copy of the instrument to the Secretary-General of the League of Nations. Copies of this notification, advising all the other Contracting States of the date on which it was received, shall be forwarded to them immediately by the Secretary-General.

The denunciation shall become effective one year after the date of the receipt of the instrument of denunciation by the Secretary-General, and shall operate only in respect of the State in question.

Article 14 (former Article 15j.

The revision of the present Convention m ay be demanded at any time by at least one- third of the Contracting States.

L

— 70 —

Annex 4a.

AMENDMENTS TO T H E T EX T OF TH E DRAFT CONVENTION AS AD OPTED BY T H E DRAFTIN G COMMITTEE.

T e x t p r o p o s e d b y t h e G e r m a n D e l e g a t i o n .

Article 4.New paragraph :

“ Nor may a loaded vessel be required to be unloaded for purposes of verification of measurement during its voyage. ”

T e x t p r o p o s e d b y t h e F r e n c h D e l e g a t i o n .

New article or clause to be inserled in the Protocol of Signature.

A.

I t is understood tha t any Contracting State may request, a t the moment of signing or acceding to the Convention, that, in the event of a re-measurement of a vessel originally measured by its own officials, original indelible marks, which are not intended solely to indicate th a t the vessel has been measured, shall be supplemented by an indelible Greek cross, and that this addition shall be regarded as equivalent to the removal described in Article 10 of the Annex to the present Convention ;

That the old measurement plates shall be marked with a cross instead of being removed ; and that, if new plates are affixed, the old plates shall be placed at the same level as and close to the new ones.

B.

In the case provided for above, the notification provided for in the third paragraph ( § No. 2) of Article 7 and in Article 8 of the Convention shall also be addressed to the original office of registration.

Annex 5.

DRAFT PROTOCOL OF SIGNATURE.

T e x t a d o p t e d b y t h e D r a f t i n g C o m m i t t e e .

A.

It is understood that, on the waterways coming within the competence of an Inter­national Commission, the Convention shall not prejudice in any way the right which the International Commission m ay have, in virtue of its own authority, to establish the regulations necessary for the application of this Convention.

B.

The Convention shall not affect in, any way the rights and obligations arising for the Contracting States from agreements relating to the reciprocal recognition of tonnage certi­ficates drawn up in registered tons.

C.

(Reserved.)

D (Former Article 6).

I t is understood th a t any Contracting State upon whose territory dues may, a t the date of coming into force of the present Convention, be levied on navigation, on the basis of regis­tered tonnage, may request, a t the moment of signature or of accession to the present Conven­tion, th a t a vessel employed in inland navigation and subject to these dues shall be provided with a supplementary measurement certificate, showing the tonnage in registered tons, the certificate being in this case recognised by the authorities of the State concerned as equivalent to those issued by itself in accordance with the same system.

— 71 —

Annex 6.

TEXTS OF ARTICLES OF TH E CONVENTION AND OF TH E PROVISIONS OFTHE PROTOCOL OF SIGNATURE SUBMITTED TO THE CONFERENCE ONNOVEMBER 2 7 t h , 1925.

CONVENTION.

T e m p o r a r y M e a s u r e s .

Article 7 (new).

As a tem porary measure and for a period of five years to run from October 1st, 1926, certificates issued prior to this date and drawn up in accordance wit h the rules of measurement and calculation contained in the Brussels Convention of February 4th, 1898, the Agreement of 1913 between Germany and Austria-Hungary and the Roumanian Regulations of 1923 shall be recognised to be of the same validity as certificates issued under the conditions provided for in the present Convention and its Annex.

P r o t o c o l o f S i g n a t u r e .

III. I t is understood tha t as a tem porary measure certificates issued after October 1st, 1926, in accordance with the rules of measurement and calculation contained in the Agree­ment of 1913 between Germany and Austria-H ungary shall be recognised on the navigable waterways where they are already so recognised on the date of the signature of the Protocol as equivalent to those to be issued under the conditions provided for in the present Convention and its Annex.

This measure m ay at any time be withdrawn by a declaration to th a t effect on the part of the States concerned.

V. I t is understood th a t the Contracting States are only bound to comply with the obli­gations contemplated in Articles 2 and 5 to the extent in which they participate in international navigation.

Annex 6a.

PROTOCOL OF SIGNATURE.

T e x t a d o p t e d b y t h e C o n f e r e n c e .

III. I t is understood that, as a tem porary measure and during a period not exceeding ten years reckoned from October 1st, 1926, the certificates issued in accordance with the rules of measurement and calculation contained in the Agreement of 1913 between Germany and Austria-Hungary, in the administrative districts where the measurements are at present made according to these rules, shall be accepted as equivalent to certificates issued in accordance w ith the conditions provided for in the Convention and in its Annex.

Annex 6aa.

PROTOCOL OF SIGNATURE.

A m e n d m e n t p r o p o s e d b y t h e G e r m a n D e l e g a t i o n t o t h e t e x t a d o p t e d b y t h e

Co n f e r e n c e

Replace paragraph III by the following text :

“ III . I t is understood that, as a temporary measure, the certificates issued in accordance with the rules of measurement and calculation contained in the Agree­ment of 1913 between Germany and Austria-Hungary shall, in the administrative districts where the measurements are a t present made according to these rules, be accepted as equivalent to the certificates issued in accordance with the conditions provided for in the present Convention and its Annex.

“ I t is understood th a t if, within a period of ten years from October 1st, 1926, the States concerned have not abandoned this reservation, a new Conference will be convened in order to consider the question. ”

— 72 —

Annex 7.

CONVENTION REGARDING TH E MEASUREMENT OF VESSELS EMPLOYEDIN INLAND NAVIGATION.

T e x t a d o p t e d b y t h e C o n f e r e n c e .

With a view to providing new facilities for international communication by means of vessels employed in inland navigation have appointed for this purpose as their plenipotentiaries :

who, after communicating their full powers, found in good and due form, agree to the following provisions, which are intended to assure the reciprocal recognition of measurement certificates.

Article 1.

Measurement certificates issued by the competent authorities of one of the Contracting States, in virtue of regulations in accordance with the provisions of the present Convention and the Annex thereto, shall, to the exclusion of all others, be accepted by the authorities of the other Contracting States as being equivalent to the certificates issued by the said States in accordance with the same rules.

Article 2.

The Contracting States undertake to apply in their territory, within nine months of the coming into force of the present Convention, under the conditions laid down in Article 12, the regulations they have individually drawn up for the execution of the provisions of the present Convention and the Annex thereto ; they shall communicate to each other the said regulations three months before their application ; any subsequent modification in these regulations shall be communicated within the same period.

Article 3.

The Contracting States undertake to measure in their territories any vessel in respect of which a request to this effect is made. The same provision shall apply to the re-measure- ment of any vessel in respect of which the request is made and which is covered by the terms of Article 4.

Article 4.

No Contracting State may demand re-measurement unless in the case of extensive repairs, im portant changes or alterations in the external or internal dimensions of the vessel, or unless the measurement certificate is more than ten years old. Such re-measurement may only be effected in accordance with the administrative regulations generally applicable.

If a Contracting State thinks it necessary to check a t its own expense the particulars given in the certificate, this operation, so far as laden vessels are concerned, shall not cover more than the external dimensions of the vessel.

Article 5.

The competent Government departm ent of each of the Contracting States shall forward quarterly to the departm ent of the other Contracting State concerned :

1. The list of the vessels remeasured by its officials and last measured by the officials of the said Contracting State ; this list shall be accompanied by the measure­m ent certificate withdrawn on re-measurement ;

2. A list of the vessels of which the last measurement certificate is registered in the said Contracting State and of which the name or official title has been altered.

Lists shall be drawn up in accordance with the Forms I and II attached to the Annex of the present Convention.

The registration offices of the various Contracting States may, when information is urgently required, correspond direct with each other.

For this purpose, States shall communicate to each other a list of their various registration offices, the distinguishing letters or numbers of these offices, and the status of the officials a t the head of these offices. The list shall be kept up to date.

Article 6 .

In the event of a measured vessel being destroyed in the territory of one of the Contract­ing States, the competent departm ent of th a t State shall, within three months of the date on which the fact is established, duly notify the registration office concerned, and the certi­ficate shall, if possible, be returned to th a t office.

— 73 —

Article 7.

As a tem porary measure and for a period of five years from October 1st, 1926, certificates issued prior to th a t date shall be accepted where this is a t present the case and where they niaY be recognised in accordance with a special arrangement.

Article 8 .

The present Convention, of which the English and French text shall be equally authentic, shall bear this d ay ’s da te and shall be open for signature until October 1st, 1926, by any State invited to the Paris Conference.

Article 9.

The present Convention shall be subject to ratification. The instruments of ratification shall be forwarded to the Secretary-General of the League of Nations, who shall notify their receipt to all the signatory or acceding States.

Article 10.

After October 1st, 1926, the present Convention may be acceded to by any State invited to the Conference and referred to in Article 8 , or by any State having a common frontier with one of these States.

Accession shall be effected by an instrument communicated to the Secretary-General of the League of Nations, to be deposited in the archives of the Secretariat. The Secretary- General shall notify such deposit to all the signatory and acceding States.

Article 11.

States not Members of the League of Nations may, if they so desire, address their instruments of ratification or accession to the French Government, which shall deposit these instruments in its archives, and communicate a copy of them to the Secretary-General of the League of Nations. The Secretary-General shall notify all the States which have signed or acceded to the Convention of the reception of these communications.

Article 12.

The present Convention shall not come into force until it has been ratified by five States. The date of its coming into force shall be the ninetieth day after the receipt by the Secretary- General of the League of Nations of the fifth ratification. Thereafter it shall take effect in the case of each of the Contracting States ninety days after the receipt of its ratification or of the notification of its accession.

In compliance with the provisions of Article 18 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, the Secretary-General shall register the present Convention upon the day of its coming into force.

Article 13.

A special record shall be kept by the Secretary-General of the League of Nations show­ing the States which have signed, ratified, acceded to or denounced the present Convention. This record shall be open a t all times to the Members of the League and to any State invited to the Conference and referred to in Article 8 ; it shall be published as often as possible, in accordance with the directions of the Council.

Article 14.

The present Convention m ay be denounced by any one of the Contracting States on the expiration of a period of five years, reckoned from the date of its coming into force in respect of that State. Notification of denunciation shall be given by an instrument in writing addressed either to the Secretary-General of the League of Nations, or, in the case of States availing themselves of the option accorded by Article 11, to the French Government, which shall communicate a copy of the instrument to the Secretary-General of the League of Nations. Copies of this notification, advising all the other Contracting States of the date on which it was received, shall be forwarded to them by the Secretary-General.

The denunciation shall become effective one year after the date of the receipt of the instrument of denunciation by the Secretary-General, and shall operate only in respect of the State in question.

Article 15.

The revision of the present Convention m ay be demanded a t any time by a t least one- third of the Contracting States.

In faith whereof the above-named plenipotentiaries have signed the present Convention.

D o n e a t Paris the twenty-seventh day of November, one thousand nine hundred a n d twenty-five, in a single copy, which shall remain deposited in the archives of the Secretariat

the League of Nations ; certified copies will be transmitted to all the States represented at the Conference.

(Here follow the signatures.)

— 74 —

A N N EX TO TH E CONVENTION REGARDING TH E MEASUREMENT OF V ESSELS

EM PLOYED IN INLAND NAVIGATION.

Article 1.

The object of measurement as defined in the present Annex is to make it possible to determine either the weight of the vessel or the weight of the cargo according to its draught

A s the total weight of a vessel is equal to the weight of the volume of water displaced by it, the weight of the cargo is equal to the weight of the volume of water displaced by the vessel when loaded minus the weight of the volume of water displaced by the vessel when empty.

Article 2.

The metric system only shall be employed in the measurement of vessels.All lineal measurements shall therefore be expressed in metres, decimetres and centi­

metres, volumes in cubic metres and cubic decimetres, and weight in tons of a thousand kilogrammes each and fractions of the same.

The operations described in the following Articles 3 and 4 shall determine the displace­ments in volume.

The weights corresponding with the displacements in volume entered upon the measure­m ent certificates shall be in each c'<sse the product of these displacements and the specific density of the water in which the draught as indicated by the scales is ascertained.

Article 3.

The volume to be measured is the external volume of the part of the hull included between:

1. The plane passing through the line of the maximum draught authorised by the regulations for the various navigable waterways on which the vessel is to be employed ;

2. A plane either a t the level of the light-load line as hereinafter defined, or a t a level corresponding to the bottom of the vessel.

Article 4.

(a) For vessels employed in carrying freight the measurements shall be taken on the vessel itself.

The part of the hull to be measured is divided by horizontal planes into segments generally one decimetre in height. The horizontal surface of each segment is divided into parts by lines perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the vessel. The central portion, approximately rectangular in form, and the forward and after ends shall each be divided into a t least four parts.

In the calculation of the surfaces, the use of the Simpson formula is compulsory for ascertaining the areas of the surfaces bounded by the curves.

The extreme parts of the forward and after ends of the boat, having a height at least equal to th a t of the adjoining parts, may, if convenient, constitute parts whose surfaces may be calculated separately.

The volume of a segment is obtained by multiplying the mean of the areas of the upper and lower sections by the height or distance between them ; when the shape of the vesselpermits, several segments may be grouped together in making the calculation.

The quotient obtained by dividing the volume of a segment by the height of the segment expressed in centimetres is taken as the displacement of the vessel for each centimetre of draught within the height of th a t segment.

(b) For vessels not employed in carrying freight it is agreed th a t their displacement, corresponding to a given load-line, shall be represented by seventy-hundredths of the product of the three following dimensions relating to the external surface of the hull without taking into account any projecting parts :

1. The length determined by the distance between the two vertical planes perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the boat and the tangents to the curveof the plane corresponding with the given load-line ;

2. The maximum breadth a t the given load-line ;3. The average displacement measured by the vertical distance between the

given load-line and the lowest part of the hull in the transverse section corresponding with the inid-point of the length as defined in the above paragraph.

These three dimensions shall be ascertained either on the vessel itself or from its plans of construction.

Article 5. v

The measuring scales shall be placed, when required, symmetrically and in pairs on the sides of the vessel in vertical planes perpendicular to the axis.

In the case of vessels more than 40 metres long, these scales shall number a t least six— two in a plane situated near the mid-point of the length, and two in each of the planes

— 75 —

situated on either side of the first, a t distances respectively equal to about one-third of the total length of the vessel.

When the number of scales is more than six, their position shall be fixed by analogywith the indications given in paragraphs 2 and 4 of the present article.

In the case of vessels no t exceeding 40 metres in length, the number of scales may bereduced to four ; they are then placed in pairs, in planes situated at points about one-thirdand two-thirds along the length of the vessel.

The scales m ust be clearly visible and attached to fixed points. They shall be graduated vertically for every two centimetres, a special m ark being made every ten centimetres ; zero shall be taken at the level of the light-load line or a t the level corresponding to the bottom of the vessel a t the position of each scale.

The height of the water-line above the lower level of the volume to be measured is takenas being equal to the arithmetical mean of the readings recorded on all the scales.

Article 6 .

The light-load line shall be regarded as the line a t which the vessel floats in fresh water when carrying only :

1. The gear, stores and crew indispensable for the navigation of the vessel ;2. W ater which cannot be removed from the hold by the usual methods of

pumping ;3. In addition, in the case of a vessel propelled by its own power, the water

ordinarily employed in its working, bu t not fuel or movable ballast.

Article 7.

The results of the measurement shall be shown in a certificate ; this certificate shall be entered under a serial number in a special register kept by the office which shall be set up for the purpose by each Contracting State for a definite area and which shall be described by distinguishing letters or numbers, the last letter or letters of which shall indicate the State on whose territory the office in question is situated.

The list of the letters distinguishing the States is attached to the present Annex.

Article 8 .

The line of maximum draught as determined in Article 3 shall be clearly indicated on each side of the vessel by one or several measurement plates the lower edge of which shall coincide with this line.

The following particulars shall be engraved in clear and legible characters near each mark or on each plate :

1. The distinguishing letters or numbers of the office referred to in Article 7 ;2. The serial number certificate.

These particulars shall be marked in indelible characters on the most durable part of thehull.

Article 9.

Every .vessel which has been measured m ust be provided with its measurement certificate. This certificate shall show :

1. The office of registry referred to in Article 7 ;2. The distinguishing letters or numbers of the said office and the serial number

of the certificate ;3. The name or the official title of the vessel ;4. The method of construction ;5. The extreme length of hull and greatest breadth of beam ;6 . The particulars referred to in paragraph 2 above as shown on the last

certificate, if any, which has been cancelled by the new measurement ;7. Where necessary, the number, position and description of the scales, and

pa rt icu la r^ the position selected for zero ;8 . The average of the vertical distances between the bottom of the vessel

a t its lowest point a t the sections corresponding with the scales and the plane of the light-load line as defined above, together with the crew, the equipment and the depth of the water in the hold of the vessel which have been accepted for the determination of the light-load line as well as the position of the fixed ballast ;

9 . The progressive displacement of the vessel for each decimetre or centi­metre of draught, starting from the level of the light-load line ; in the case of vessels not employed in carrying freight, these particulars shall be replaced by those relating to the light-load line defined in Article 6 and the displacement between the line of m aximum draught defined in Article 3 and the light-load line.

— 76 —

Article 10.

On a vessel being re-ineasured, the old inscription and marks, and, if necessary, the measurement plates and scales, shall be removed, and they shall be replaced as in the case of a first measurement.

At the same time, the old tonnage certificate shall be withdrawn.

Article 11.

If the name or official title of a vessel is altered, the fact shall be mentioned on the certificate by an official duly authorised for the purpose. This note shall be dated and signed.

F o r m I.

Vessels re-measured in

A d d e n d u m I.

1 during the ..................... quarter of the y e a r ............................. last measured in

SERIALNUMBER

1

NAME OR OFFICIAL TITLE

OF VESSEL.

2

LETTERS and NUMBER of the previous

Entry.

3

Maximum displace­ment in volume

entered in the cancelled certificate.

4

LETTERS and NUMBER of new Entry.

5

Maximum displace­ment in volume entered in new

certificate.6

DATEOF

RE-MEASUREMENT.

7

REMARKS.

8

1 ( l ive name ol State.

F o r m II. Addendum I (continued).

Vetsels entered in ............................ 1 which have changed hands, or the name or official title of which lias been altered, during t h e ................................ quarter of the year

SERIALNUMBER

1

PREVIOUS NAME or

OFFICIAL TITLE OF THE VESSEL.

2

NEW NAME or NEW OFFICIAL

TITLE.

3

LETTERS and NUMBER of

Entry.

4

NAME and PLACE of residence of Agent

by whom the Certificate was modified.

5

DATEOF

MODIFICATIONS.

6

REMARKS.

7

Give name of State.

— 78 -

Addendum II.

L ist of D istin g u ish in g L etters of the States r ef er r ed to in A rticle 7.

D Germany Latvia

A Austria LT LithuaniaB Belgium I. Luxem burg

GB British Empire NO Norw ay

Irish Free S tate N Netherlands

BG Bulgaria PL Poland

DA Danzig P Portugal

D K Denm ark RM Roum ania

E Spain SR Union of the Soviet SocialistEsthonia Republics

SF Finland SHS K ingdom of the Serbs, Croats

F France SlovenesGR Greece S Sweden

M Hungary CH Switzerland

I Italy cs Czechoslovakia

PROTOCOL OF SIGNATURE.

At the moment of signing the Convention of to-day’s date relating to the measurement of vessels employed in inland navigation, the undersigned, duly authorised, have agreed as follows :

I. I t is understood that, on the waterways coming within the competence of an inter­national Commission, the Convention shall not prejudice in any way the right which the International Commission m ay have of its own authority to establish the regulations necessary for the application of this Convention or the obligations laid upon the Commission by the treaties, conventions and acts which regulate its position.

II. It is understood th a t the Convention shall not affect in any way the rights and obligations arising for the Contracting States from agreements relating to the reciprocal recognition of tonnage certificates drawn up in registered tons.

III. It is understood that, as a temporary measure, the certificates issued in accordance with the rules of measurement and calculation contained in the Agreement of 1913 between Germany and Austria-Hungary, in the administrative districts where the measurements are a t present made according to these rules, shall be accepted as equivalent to the certificates issued in accordance with the conditions provided for in the present Convention and its Annex. If within a period of ten years from October 1st, 1926, the States which issue these certificates have not abandoned this reservation, a new conference will be convened in order to consider the question.

IV. It is understood that any Contracting State upon whose territory dues may, on October 1st, 1926, be levied on navigation on the basis of registered tonnage may request a t the moment of signing or acceding to the present Convention that, as a temporary measure, the vessel employed in inland navigation and subject to these dues shall be provided with a measurement certificate, the certificate being, in this case, recognised by the authorities of the State concerned as equivalent to those issued by itself in accordance with the same system ; failing the production of this certificate, the State concerned may proceed to a supplementary measurement.

V. It is understood th a t the Contracting States are only bound to comply with the obligations contemplated in Articles 2 and 5 of the Convention to the extent in which they participate in international navigation.

VI. I t is understood th a t any Contracting State m ay request, at the moment of signing or acceding to the Convention, th a t in the event of a re-measurement of a vessel originally measured by its own officials, the original indelible marks, when they are not intended solely to indicate th a t the vessel has been measured, shall have added to them an indelible cross having arms of equal length, and th a t this addition shall be regarded as equivalent to the

— 79 -

removal described in Article 10 of the Convention ; th a t the old measurement plates shall j,e m arked with a cross instead of being withdrawn ; and that, if new plates are affixed, the Id plates shall be placed at. the same level and near to the new ones.

In the case provided for above, the notification provided for in the third paragraph of Article 5 and in Article 6 of the Convention shall also be addressed to the original office ofinscription.

The present protocol shall have the same force, effect and duration as the Convention f to-day’s date of which it is to be considered as an integral part.

In faith whereof the Plenipotentiaries hereinafter named have signed the present Protocol.

D o n e a t Paris, the twenty-seventh day of November, one thousand nine hundred and tw e n ty -f iv e , i n a single c o p y , which will remain d e p o s i t e d with the Secretariat o f the League 0f N a t i o n s ; certified c o p i e s will be transmitted t o all the States represented a t the Conference.

(Here follow the signatures.)

Annex 8.

RECOMMENDATION ADOPTED BY T H E CONFERENCE AND INSERTED IN TH E FINAL ACT.

The Conference requests the Advisory and Technical Committee for Communications and Transit of the League of Nations to establish, if possible before October 1st, 1926, a standard form of certificate of measurement which will be communicated to all the States represented at the Conference. Pending the coming into force of certificates established in accordance with this standard form, the Conference recommends th a t the printed texts of the certificates established by the Contracting States shall be drafted in French and German and in the national language when this language is o ther than French or German,