years past. It has been estimated that shippers, underwriters, and bankers will secure about 90 per cent of the changes for which they have been contending and they should be content with the bargain. It is a mistake to attempt any material change in a document which has been agreed upon at an international conference after years of debate.

In fairness to the subject, however, we must necessarily consider the principal objections which have been offered, and endeavor to point out how the present well-nigh intolerable situation will be improved by adoption of The Hague rules. Some claim they do not wish to give up the benefits conferred by the provisions of the Harter Act. It should be borne in mind that The Hague rules are patterned after the Harter Act, some provisions being practically identical. It is claimed that the provision in the rules to the effect that the contract of carriage only covers the period from the time when the goods are loaded on to the time they are discharged from the ship" is unfair. The Hague rules aim to define risks of carriage by sea and do not undertake to amend local laws covering a steamship company's liability as warehouseman or bailee. The customary obligation of a warehouseman (and as such the carrier acts before loading and after discharge) is to use ordinary care and skill. If The Hague rules are adopted the provisions of the Harter Act, covering the period before loading and after discharge, will still apply, and if necessary further amendments may be made to the Harter Act covering this period. In addition, The Hague rules present advantages to shippers over and above the benefits conferred by the terms of the Harter Act. Possibly the three most noteworthy of these, besides the international uniformity which will result, are:

1. The carrier is prohibited from limiting his liability below £100 per package. 2. Shippers and/or owners are allowed a year within which to bring suit for loss of, or damage, to their goods.

3. Innumerable "exception" clauses are eliminated, and the owners of damaged or lost goods are not required to prove that the loss or damage was due to the carrier's negligence; the burden of proving that loss or damage was not the result of the carrier's negligence has been placed on the carrier.

Because of the fact that a consignee is usually not present at the actual time of discharge of his shipment certain interests claim that he is not in a position to file written notice of claim for loss or damage, as the rules require in all cases except where such loss or damage is not apparent. (Art. III, sec. 6.) But it is to be noted that in the absence of such notice of claim the removal of the goods is merely regarded as "prima facie evidence of the delivery by the carrier of the goods as described in the bill of lading." This means that the consignee must only show that the loss or damage was not caused after removal from the ship; the recipient or shipper of the merchandise is allowed a year in which to file suit before the carrier is freed of liability as compared with the short periods permitted under present-day bills of lading. (Failure to comply within even a short limit affords a complete bar to any claim.) Furthermore, it should be borne in mind that, under existing conditions, the consignee must prove that the loss or damage is caused by the car.ier's negligence, whereas under The Hague Rules the carrier must prove the loss or damage did not result from his negligence or fault or that of his servants.

It is claimed by some that the shipowner should be liable for the acts of the master, pilot, and other employees in the management and navigation of the ship. (Art. IV, sec. 2a). But the bills of lading we now use provide this same exemption, and always have, and it is surely better that loss or damage resulting from such acts or negligence in the navigation and management of the ship should be covered by insurance, just as is true of the customary "perils of the sea."

Article IV, section 2q, relieving the carrier of liability for "any other cause arising without the actual fault or privity of the carrier or without the fault or neglect of the agents or servants of the carrier" has been criticized as being unnecessary and unfair. The fact is that similar provisions are found in practically all of our bills of lading now, and it is believed that the best results will be accomplished if carriers are held for their own negligence only. Serious losses by pilferage, for instance, were prevalent during and after the World War, resulting in the refusal of underwriters to insure more than 75 per cent of the risk against pilferage. It is sufficient to say that, under a Hague Rules bill of lading, full cover is now obtainable, inasmuch as the carrier, under the rules, is required to prove that the pilferage was not caused by his agents or servants or through their negligence. Deviation for the purpose of saving life is recognized as just and proper, and deviation to save property is usually not criticized. The Hague rules, in addition, permit any "reasonable deviation. This is objected to by some shippers. But let us ascertain what deviation is allowed to-day. The following clause,

possibly a bit extreme, although by no means unusual, is found in a bill of lading: "with liberty * * * to proceed to, and stay at any ports or places whatsoever (although in a contrary direction to, or out of, or beyond, the route to the said port of discharge), once or oftener, in any order backwards or forwards, for loading or discharging cargo or passengers, or for any purpose whatsoever. * * *" Surely a Hague rules bill of lading, permitting only "reasonable deviation," is preferable to one containing any clause such as the above, and such clauses will not disappear from our bills of lading until The Hague rules are adopted.

Some shippers make the claim that they were not properly represented at the conference which framed the rules. Admitting this to be the case, that would not be a valid argument, per se, for declining to lend support. It should be borne in mind that these rules have been tried, at first through voluntary adoption, now through legislative enactment, and found satisfactory by British shipping companies. One steamship company (Furness, Withy & Co. (Ltd.) in introduction to their pamphlet, Addendum to Liner Bills of Lading) reported in 1924 that they had issued over 100,000 copies of bills of lading under the rules "without a single case of litigation or even dispute as to the meaning and construction of the terms of the rules. Incidentally these bills of lading do not contain a disproportionate number of clauses; they are printed in readable type, arranged by headings and readily enable the holder to ascertain the scope of the document. The observation of a judge of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals (Judge Chas. M. Hough in his letter of April 28, 1926, addressed to Hon. Joseph C. Grew, Acting Secretary of State, Washington) is also of interest in this connection. He stated in 1926 that during the two years the rules had been in force, not a single instance had been reported of litigation arising out of them; during the same period, however, he himself had heard at least 20 cases depending upon the interpretation of the "unreformed" bill of lading. Such concrete evidence of the "workability" of The Hague rules would seem to justify their adoption.

The Hague rules convention, while admittedly a compromise, endeavors to secure an international agreement unifying the various laws of the world's maritime nations, no two of which have the same law applicable to the lengthy and cumbersome provisions of manifold types of bills of lading which are received and negotiated by importers, exporters, and bankers throughout the world. The Hague rules are a long step in the right direction. They eliminate most of the objectionable exceptions and objections commonly found in bills of lading. The rules are complete and self-contained, and do not assume or depend on the law of any particular country to provide the basis of liability. They impose certain minimum responsibilities on carriers, and, more important, once they are universally adopted, international uniformity is assured. All parties concerned will know definitely where they stand, and what their responsibilities and rights

are.

The uniform adoption of this convention, coupled with suitable legislation. would materially simplify and standardize present-day bills of lading and in the accomplishment of such constructive work the United States should take a leading part. The resulting uniformity would be of inestimable service to all users of bills of lading, and, what is perhaps of greater concern to our shippers and bankers, would strengthen the value of ocean bills of lading as collateral, and furnish that feeling of protection and security which, unfortunately, is now wholly lacking. With a uniform law, even if it were not an altogether satisfactory one, the doubt and uncertainty now prevailing would be eliminated. After The Hague rules are adopted, it is probable that the International Chamber of Commerce, which has done so much to secure their approval, will undertake the problem of securing uniform forms of bills of lading; with different laws, such as we have to-day, any attempt to adopt uniform forms is useless.

WHAT TO DO ABOUT THE QUESTION

Mark Twain is frequently quoted as saying that while everybody talked about the weather nobody did anything about it. In fairness to the worthy activities of certain individuals and associations, this is not literally true as far as The Hague rules are concerned. It is a fact, however, that while resolutions have been passed supporting the project, comparatively little enthusiasm has been aroused, due possibly to lack of appreciation by bankers, shippers, and other parties at interest, of the advantages of the rules. It is hoped that this paper may serve to help in spreading "the good word" and lead to definite action on

102101-30-PT 1———9

the part of the United States and the other countries which have not yet ratified the convention, although their diplomatic representatives signed it years ago. British bankers have been instrumental in securing the ratification of The Hague rules convention in their country, as they realize better security is afforded thereby, and that a Hague rules bill of lading is better collateral. Šimilarly it is hoped that bankers and shippers in this country will take active steps to demand Hague rules bills of lading from their steamship companies. It is felt that once American shippers are aware of the added protection afforded by a Hague rules bill of lading, they will be as insistent as our British friends in demanding such a document.

Experience has unfortunately shown that some people can not be coaxed but must be driven. This is entirely true with this important subject, for, while some steamship companies have voluntarily adopted the suggested bill of lading, others have not fallen into line, probably because shippers have failed to exert the required pressure. All interested parties are accordingly urged to take this matter up immediately with the steamship companies in their respective cities and elsewhere. In addition it is hoped that suitable action will be initiated and carried out through various associations and organizations of which they may be members. More important still, it is highly desirable that the Hague rules convention be ratified and appropriate legislation passed at the coming session of Congress. Letters and association resolutions should accordingly be directed to our Senators and Representatives. In the meantime, a general discussion of the proposal among bankers, shippers, and carriers will be a most valuable aid toward securing the adoption of The Hague rules governing the ocean transportation of goods in foreign commerce.

APPENDIX

THE HAGUE RULES, 1921, AS MODIFIED BY THE INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE UNIFICATION OF CERTAIN RULES RELATING TO BILLS OF LADING, HELD AT BRUSSELS, OCTOBER 17-26, 1922

ARTICLE I

In this convention the following words are employed with the meanings set out below: (a) 'Carrier" includes the owner of the vessel or the charterer who enters into a contract of carriage with a shipper.

(b) "Contract of carriage" applies only to contracts of carriage covered by a bill of lading or any similar document of title, in so far as such document relates to the carriage of goods by sea; it also applies to any bill of lading or any similar document as aforesaid issued under or pursuant to a charter party from the moment at which such instrument regulates the relations between a carrier and a holder of the same.

(c) "Goods" includes goods, wares. merchandise, and articles of every kind whatsoever except live animals and cargo which by the contract of carriage is stated as being carried on deck and is so carried.

(d) "Ship" means any vessel used for the carriage of goods by sea.

(e) "Carriage of goods" covers the period from the time when the goods are loaded on to the time they are discharged from the ship.

ARTICLE II

Subject to the provisions of Article VI under every contract of carriage of goods by sea the carrier, in relation to the loading, handling, stowage, carriage, custody, care, and discharge of such goods shall be subject to the responsibilities / and liabilities, and entitled to the rights and immunities hereinafter set forth.

ARTICLE III

1. The carrier shall be bound before and at the beginning of the voyage to exercise due diligence to: (a) Make the ship seaworthy; (b) properly man, equip, and supply the ship; (c) make the holds, refrigerating and cool chambers and all other parts of the ship in which goods are carried, fit and safe for their reception, carriage, and preservation.

2. Subject to the provisions of Article IV the carrier shall properly and carefully load, handle, stow, carry, keep, care for, and discharge the goods carried.

3. After receiving the goods into his charge the carrier or the master or agent of the carrier shall, on demand of the shipper, issue to the shipper a bill of lading showing among other things:

(a) The leading marks necessary for identification of the goods as the same are furnished in writing by the shipper before the loading of such goods starts, provided such marks are stamped or otherwise shown clearly upon the goods if uncovered, or on the cases or coverings in which such goods are contained, in such a manner as should ordinarily remain legible until the end of the voyage; (b) either the number of packages or pieces, or the quantity, or weight, as the case may be, as furnished in writing by the shipper; (c) the apparent order and condition of the goods. Provided, That no carrier, master, or agent of the carrier shall be bound to state or show in the bill of lading any marks, number, quantity, or weight which he has reasonable grounds for suspecting not accurately to represent the goods actually received or which he has had no reasonable means of checking.

4. Such a bill of lading shall be prima facie evidence of the receipt by the carrier of the goods as therein described in accordance with paragraph 3 (a), (b), and (c). 5. The shipper shall be deemed to have guaranteed to the carrier the accuracy at the time of shipment of the marks, number, quantity, and weight, as furnished by him, and the shipper shall indemnify the carrier against all loss, damages, and expenses arising or resulting from inaccuracies in such particulars. The right of the carrier to such indemnity shall in no way limit his responsibility and liability under the contract of carriage to any person other than the shipper.

6. Unless notice of loss or damage and the general nature of such loss or damage be given in writing to the carrier or his agent at the port of discharge before or at the time of the removal of the goods into the custody of the person entitled to delivery thereof under the contract of carriage, such removal shall be prima facie evidence of the delivery by the carrier of the goods as described in the bill of lading.

If the loss or damage is not apparent, the notice must be given within three days of the delivery.

The notice in writing need not be given if the state of the goods has at the time of their receipt been the subject of joint survey or inspection.

In any event the carrier and the ship shall be discharged from all liability in respect of loss or damage unless suit is brought within one year after delivery of the goods or the date when the goods should have been delivered.

In the case of any actual or apprehended loss or damage the carrier and the receiver shall give all reasonable facilities to each other for inspecting and tallying the goods.

L

7. After the goods are loaded the bill of lading to be issued by the carrier, master, or agent of the carrier to the shipper shall, if the shipper so demands, be a "shipped" bill of lading, provided that if the shipper shall have previously taken up any document of title to such goods, he shall surrender the same as against the issue of the "shipped" bill of lading. At the option of the carrier such document of title may be noted at the port of shipment by the carrier, master, or agent with the name or names of the ship or ships upon which the goods have been shipped and the date or dates of shipment, and when so noted, if it shows the particulars mentioned in pagagraph 3 of Article III, it shall for the purpose of this article be deemed to constitute a "shipped" bill of lading.

8. Any clause, covenant, or agreement in a contract of carriage relieving the carrier or the ship from liability for loss or damage to or in connection with goods arising from negligence, fault, or failure in the duties and obligations provided in this article, or lessening such liability otherwise than as provided in this convention, shall be null and void and of no effect. A benefit of insurance in favor of the carrier or similar clause shall be deemed to be a clause relieving the carrier from liability.

ARTICLE IV

1. Neither the carrier nor the ship shall be liable for loss or damage arising or resulting from unseaworthiness unless caused by want of due diligence on the part of the carrier to make the ship seaworthy and to secure that the ship is properly manned, equipped, and supplied and to make the holds, refrigerating and cool chambers, and all other parts of the ship in which goods are carried fit and safe for their reception, carriage, and preservation in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 of Article III. Whenever loss or damage has resulted from unseaworthiness, the burden of proving the exercise of due diligence shall be on the carrier or other person claiming exemption under this article.

2. Neither the carrier nor the ship shall be responsible for loss or damage arising or resulting from: (a) Act, neglect, or default of the master, mariner, pilot, or the servants of the carrier in the navigation or in the management of the ship; (b) fire, unless caused by the actual fault or privity of the carrier; (c) perils, dangers, and accidents, of the sea or other navigable waters; (d) act of God; (e) act of war; (f) act of public enemies; (g) arrest or restraint of princes, rulers, or people or seizure under legal process; (h) quarantine restrictions; (i) act or omission of the shipper or owner of the goods, his agent, or representative; (j) strikes or lockouts or stoppage or restraint of labor from whatever cause, whether partial or general; (k) riots and civil commotions; (1) saving or attempting to save life or property at sea; (m) wastage in bulk or weight or any other loss or damage arising from inherent defect, quality, or vice of the goods; (n) insufficiency of packing; (0) insufficiency or inadequacy of marks; (p) latent defects not discoverable by due diligence; (q) Any other cause arising without the actual fault or privity of the carrier, or without the fault or neglect of the agents or servants of the carrier, but the bruden of proof shall be on the person claiming the benefit of this exception to show that neither the actual fault or privity of the carrier nor the fault or neglect of the agents or servants of the carrier contributed to the loss or damage.

3. The shipper shall not be responsible for loss or damage sustained by the carrier or the ship arising or resulting from any cause without the act, fault, or neglect of the shipper, his agents, or his servants.

4. Any deviation in saving or attempting to save life or property at sea or any reasonable deviation shall not be deemed to be an infringement or breach of this convention or of the contract of carriage, and the carrier shall not be liable for any loss or damage resulting therefrom.

5. Neither the carrier nor the ship shall in any event be or become liable for any loss or damage to or in connection with goods in an amount exceeding 100 pounds sterling per package or unit or the equivalent of that sum in other currency unless the nature and value of such goods have been declared by the shipper before shipment and inserted in the bill of lading.

This declaration if embodied in the bill of lading shall be prima facie evidence but shall not be binding or conclusive on the carrier.

By agreement between the carrier, master, or agent of the carrier and the shipper another maximum amount than that mentioned in this paragraph may be fixed, provided that such maximum shall not be less than the figure above named.

Neither the carrier nor the ship shall be responsible in any event for loss or damage to or in connection with goods if the nature or value thereof has been knowingly misstated by the shipper in the bill of lading.

6. Goods of an inflammable, explosive, or dangerous nature to the shipment whereof the carrier, master, or agent of the carrier has not consented with knowledge of their nature and character may at any time before discharge be landed at any place or destroyed or rendered innocuous by the carrier without compensation, and the shipper of such goods shall be liable for all damages and expenses directly or indirectly arising out of or resulting from such shipment. If any such goods shipped with such knowledge and consent shall become a danger to the ship or cargo, they may in like manner be landed at any place or destroyed or rendered innocuous by the carrier without liability on the part of the carrier except to general average, if any.

ARTICLE V

A carrier shall be at liberty to surrender in whole or in part all or any of his rights and immunities or to increase any of his responsibilities and liabilities under this convention provided such surrender or increase shall be embodied in the bill of lading issued to the shipper.

The provisions of this convention shall not be applicable to charter parties, but if bills of lading are issued in the case of a ship under a charter party they shall comply with the terms of this convention. Nothing in these rules shall be held to prevent the insertion in a bill of lading of any lawful provision regarding general average.

ARTICLE VI

Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding articles, a carrier, master, or agent of the carrier and a shipper shall in regard to any particular goods be at liberty to enter into any agreement in any terms as to the responsibility and liability of the carrier for such goods, and as to the rights and immunities of the carrier in respect of such goods, or concerning his obligation as to seaworthiness