I propose in these remarks to study some changes that I think should be made in the Washington Convention of 1905. It should be remembered that the Conference of the American Republics held on that date agreed to accept the Paris Convention of 1903, adding all that was pertinent to the management of yellow fever, thus filling the blank left in the European Convention. Otherwise the American Convention differs from the European only in that we insisted upon the use of the word "observation" generally in lieu of the word "surveillance." This has subjected our American methods to criticism from some quarters. Even in our own countries when complaint is made of the stringency of quarantine measures, and the detention of passengers for observation, some are apt to bring forth, in contrast, the more liberal practice of some European countries, specially England. I wish to dwell briefly upon the difference of conditions that has brought about the difference of procedures that we have mentioned. Our American countries enclose extensive territories into which are flowing continuous streams of immigrants. It is next to impossible to keep track of these dispersing multitudes over ranches, mining camps and sparsely peopled communities. Hence the necessity of some detention of suspects and contacts at the point of entry. The nations that, at home, stand for the open door in matters of quarantine are very far from carrying these methods into their colonies. The shores of the Red Sea are dotted over with quarantine stations for the control of the movements of pilgrims who, in many respects resemble our immigrants. Ceylon and Malta also are well provided with detention camps. The changes I would suggest in the Washington Convention of 1905 are the following: