INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA. 7 



eign trade between the nations which ratify the Convention. Each nation, of course, 

 reserves its coasting trade for its own legislation. Each nation is at liberty to ex- 

 empt from the rules of the Convention vessels which go less than two hundred miles 

 from the nearest coast. This exemption was drawn principally to cover the trade 

 across the channel between Great Britain and the Continent, which from Brest to 

 the river Elbe has been described as "home trade" for many years in British laws. 

 It would, of course, cover trade on the Baltic and on the Mediterranean if the 

 nations with coasts on those seas deem it wise to exempt those trades. Trade on 

 our Great Lakes is, of course, reserved from the operations of the Convention. 



The American delegation at the outset favored the preparation of a conven- 

 tion which should also apply to freight steamers. It soon became evident, however, 

 that to draft the different rules required for freight steamers would unduly prolong 

 the conference, and would also so overload the conference that much less satisfac- 

 tory conclusions as to passenger steamers could be reached. This difficulty was 

 particularly serious in the matter of hull construction, where the problems connected 

 with cargo are somewhat different from those connected with passenger steamers. 



The Convention was to have been ratified not later than December 31, I9i4» 

 and was to have taken effect on July i, 191 5. At the outbreak of the European 

 war, good progress had been made toward ratification. The Convention was rati- 

 fied by the German Reichstag in May, and its promulgation awaited only agreement 

 upon the schedule of exempted voyages. In Great Britain the bill to carry out the 

 Convention was laid before Parliament in May and according to programme was 

 enacted August 10, 1914, shortly after the passage of the Home Rule Bill for 

 Ireland. The bill to give the Convention effect in France was laid before the Cham- 

 ber of Deputies in February and, while its consideration was somewhat delayed by 

 the general elections in France, its passage was expected in the autumn. The Spanish 

 Government also was confident that the treaty would be ratified and the necessary 

 legislation enacted as soon as the Cortes meets in the autumn. The bill to give ef- 

 fect to the treaty was laid before the Parliament of The Netherlands in the early 

 summer and its enactment in September was expected. The ratification of the Con- 

 vention by Belgium and Italy, and the passage of bills to give effect to its provi- 

 sions introduced in the spring, were expected in November. Austria, late in the 

 spring, had expressed its readiness to ratify the Convention at any time, but its 

 action was dependent somewhat upon that of Hungary, where it had not yet been 

 decided whether approval by the Hungarian Parliament was necessary in advance 

 of the royal signature. As the Danish Parliament does not meet until 191 5, the 

 Danish Government was granted a special delay by the Protocol of the Convention 

 itself until April i, 1915. Sweden, too, could not act until the Rigsdag assembles in 

 191 5, as the money appropriation for the ice patrol must have legislative approval. 

 I am not advised as to the progress of the Convention in Norway and Russia. 

 The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations of the United States Senate was pre- 

 pared to report the Convention for the consideration of the Senate on June 10, but 

 as the form of ratification agreed to presented some difficulties it was reserved for 



