that time, so that, if possible, a survey and examination can be made at that time. Now, if there is no notice, and nothing to call attention to the fact that there is damage, then notice before taking delivery should not be required; but notice ought to be required within a reasonable time after delivery is taken under those circumstances. Mr. DAVIS. Oh, yes; I agree with you as to the principle, but at the same time, nothing impossible or unreasonable should be required. Mr. CAMPBELL. Not a bit.

Mr. DAVIS. And everybody should be given a reasonable time. Suppose the agent of the consignee received the consignment, and to all appearances it is all right. This agent perhaps is not expected, and it is not his duty, to open up those goods at once. He is receiving them from some consignee, and may be they are to be transshipped by rail or water, and then they finally reach their destination, the ultimate consignee, the consumer. Of course, until he opens up those goods, he can not know, if the damage is not apparent, and he should have a reasonable time, as you suggest, within which to examine the goods and give the notice.

Mr. CAMPBELL. I think that is so, but, Judge Davis, does this clause really have the effect of what you think it does? It says that "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.” Now, one would think that that would apply ouly to cases where there is no apparent damage.

Now, if the package is delivered by the shipowner to the shipper, it passes out of the custody of the shipowner, and if there is no apparent damage on the outside, why should it not be prima facie evidence that the package was delivered in good order? Why should not the burden be then upon the purchaser who takes it into his custody and examines it, to establish that the goods were damaged?

Now, when you come down to practical business, and the handling of those claims, those proofs are not difficult. It is really a question of who is to go forward with his case in the first instance.

Mr. DAVIS. Well, of course, where there is a damage apparent, I assume that they would mutually examine and see what was the damage.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Well, I think they do.

Mr. DAVIS. But it says "damage before or at the time."

Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes; but it does not say that notice must be given. It says that "unless notice of loss or damage" is given, it shall be prima facie evidence, and so forth.

Mr. DAVIS. That is true, of course, but at the same time I think a man should have reasonable notice before the burden of proof shifts against him to give notice. But the line of my inquiry right at this particular moment is to ascertain the difference between this bill and the present bill of lading-that is the line-without entering into a discussion of the merits of it. I first want to get the picture, and pursue the line on the present bill of lading.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Excuse me a moment.

I happen to have a copy of the old hearings. Was not the bill of lading put in as an exhibit in those hearings?

Mr. DAVIS. Yes; but that was several years ago. I do not know whether there has been any change in it or not.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Well, not substantially.

Mr. ABERNETHY. I understand from Mr. Haight that there has been considerable difference.

Mr. CAMPBELL. In bills of lading?

Mr. ABERNETHY. Yes; in his hearing yesterday he undertook to modify and amend the Harter Act to some extent.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Well, he can not do that.

Mr. DAVIS. Under this bill?

Mr. CAMPBELL. He is talking about the bill of lading under the Harter Act.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Your distinguished predecessor, as a witness here, seemed to think it did amend the Harter Act.

Mr. CAMPBELL. I thought you said that the bills of lading

Mr. ABERNETHY. I say that the bill of lading that you are asking us to make a law here, does, in effect, amend the Harter Act, according to Mr. Haight.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes; that is true enough. But I understood you to say that the bill of lading which had been changed in the past

year

Mr. DAVIS. I am asking about the bill of lading that they are using now.

Mr. ABERNETHY. I beg your pardon. I did not want to break in. Mr. DAVIS. Now, Mr. Campbell, the British steamship lines now have a uniform bill of lading, do they not?

Mr. CAMPBELL. Well, if that is so, I did not know it.
Mr. DAVIS. Do you know, General Parker?

Mr. PARKER. It must be very recent, but Mr. Haight said at the meeting yesterday that the British had passed this law, and since they had passed the law, in the form of the one at the convention in Buffalo, it seems that the bill of lading must be more or less uniform.

Mr. DAVIS. Well, he did not say they had passed this law. He said they had passed a law carrying into effect the Hague code, with a reservation.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Well, that is substantially this law, except Title II has been added to it.

Mr. MYRICK. Since the passage of the carriage of goods act by Parliament some of the English companies have adopted the bill of lading embodying those rules; that is to say, they are very much shorter; they simply say that this bill of lading is issued subject to the carriage of goods act.

Mr. DAVIS. Have either of you gentlemen a copy of the regular British bill of lading that you can file with the committee?

Mr. CAMPBELL. I can obtain that for you.

Mr. PARKER. Are not the bills of lading of most of the lines which are in the conference practically the same?

Mr. CAMPBELL. Well, I think so. I have never drawn a bill of lading having to do with the provisions of a bill of lading of a foreign line. I think the bills of lading are made up substantially as I have made up a bill of lading. Only recently I have been working on one. What do you do? You gather all the bills of lading that you can get your hands on, and you study them, and from those you take most of your clauses, you modify them according to your own views, and

you may put in some new clauses, or omit other clauses; that is the way they always have done, and that is the way this thing has grown up. On the whole, you can see that these bills of lading substantially agree with each other.

Mr. DAVIS. Well, that is what I have always understood. Now, as suggested by General Parker, that is one thing that the conference has agreed upon, has it not-the form of a bill of lading?

Mr. CAMPBELL. No; I do not think so. I have organized many of these conferences; I do not think they have undertaken to pass upon the form of the bill of lading.

Mr. DAVIS. Of course, I know that the primary purpose of the conference is to agree upon rates, but it is an undoubted fact that they agree upon many other matters besides rates.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Oh, yes, certainly.

Mr. DAVIS. And I have always understood they at least dealt in part with the subject of bills of lading.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Well, I have never had anything to do with the so-called North Atlantic Conference, which is comprised of the lines running in the North Atlantic areas. Now, it might be that that conference, by reason of the enactment of this law in England, has agreed upon a standard form of bill of lading, but whether that is true or not, I do now know. But I can obtain all that information for you.

Mr. Davis. Now, if there is any material variation in the bills of lading, I would like to get one of the German, the French, and Norwegian lines.

Mr. CAMPBELL. I will undertake to lay before you full information regarding bills of lading.

Mr. DAVIS. And, of course, I want one of the most uniform bills of lading, not some isolated exception that some company may have adopted.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Oh, no, sir.

Mr. DAVIS. I want it as near standard as I can get it.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Will this satisfy your question? Take the American Line. I will get you a copy of the Dollar Line, of the Munson Line, of the Grace Line, of the United States Lines, and I think Mr. Herberman will be glad to furnish one of his.

Mr. DAVIS. And some of the principal foreign lines.
Mr. CAMPBELL. The principal foreign lines.

Mr. BLAND. Do they not have rubber stamps so that they can stamp exceptions on these things and interchange or transfers?"

Mr. CAMPBELL. No. I will tell you why. That is one of the things, and I will tell you why I am in favor of this law in many respects. It is one thing we are trying to accomplish. They use rubber stamps but very slightly for this reason, that the burden of making out these bills of lading is something enormous. It would

take some time to make them out. It seems to me that the American Line told me that they had to make out 14 copies of every bill of lading sometimes. That would be as high as 7,500 to 10,000 bills of lading. The burden of making those out and the cost is so great, as it is done by clerks, that it is a rare instance where you will find that they put a rubber stamp on it. If it is it is something that pertains to some particular thing that has happened to come up in a most unusual way.

Mr. DAVIS. There is something like this. A ship line will contract to carry at a special rate some particular character of cargo, maybe a large cargo, maybe a shipload, and they will give this low rate out of consideration of being permitted to more rigidly limit their liability or something of that kind.

Mr. CAMPBELL. I do not think that is so. There may be cases of that but generally that is not so.

Mr. DAVIS. We are not talking about exceptions. That is what Mr. Bland asked you about, not on the regular bills of lading, but he is asking you about the stamped-in exceptions.

Mr. CAMPBELL. No; I think the exceptions contained in the bills. of lading to-day are so broad it would be almost impossible to make a broader clause to stamp on the margin.

Mr. DAVIS. They are exempting so much they do not need such exceptions.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Exactly; it would take a pretty good imagination to go further than they do to-day. I would think this. For instance, take a situation like we had some experience with where we know that we have had cases where acid was shipped. The Shipping Board had some terrific losses. That is a highly dangerous cargo, which you may have to carry on deck. Undoubtedly, if you get a cargo of that sort the steamship company and the shipper would probably enter into some special condition pertaining to that cargo, that it should be shipped on deck at the full risk of the shipper, something of that sort. It is in those instances where you find those marginal exceptions.

Mr. DAVIS. The express purpose of enacting this legislation is to procure uniformity of bills of lading, is it not?

Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes; generally that is so.

Mr. DAVIS. That was the chief argument advanced by Mr. Haight yesterday.

Mr. CAMPBELL. I will tell you what is in my mind for the shipowner that I would like to see accomplished and that is this: This law to contain substantially everything pertaining to the question of liability rights and liability of the shipper and the shipowner-so that the law itself, so that the provisions can be carried into the bill of lading by some reference to the act and thereby cut down the size of these bills of lading to eliminate this great mass of fine print that you see to-day. Now, unquestionably, if we can get a short form of bill of lading, it will save the shipowners thousands and thousands of dollars.

Mr. BLAND. Under the present exemptions could we not accomplish that by putting in there a provision that nothing in this bill of lading shall impose any liability whatsoever.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Not at all; because we are subject to the law.

Mr. DAVIS. I do not want to be diverted from my line of inquiry about uniformity.

I will ask you and the members of the committee to turn to page 10 of the pending bill, section 5 of H. R. 3830, where it says:

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 act, provided such surrender or increase shall be embodied in the bill of lading issued to the shipper.

Then comes section 6.

Before that, though, is this next paragraph in section 5 with respect to charter parties which is now law. Section 6 of the pending bill reads as follows:

Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding sections, 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 his obligation as to seaworthiness (so far as the stipulation regarding seaworthiness is not contrary to public policy), or the care or diligence of his servants or agents in regard to the loading, handling, stowage, carriage, custody, care, and discharge of the goods carried by sea: Provided, That in this case no bill of lading has been or shall be issued and that the terms agreed shall be embodied in a receipt which shall be a nonnegotiable document and shall be marked as such.

I will ask you if sections 5 and 6 do not absolutely destroy any possibility of uniformity.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Not at all.

Mr. DAVIS. I do not understand the meaning of the English language then.

Mr. CAMPBELL. May I explain why I answered it that way?
Mr. DAVIS. Yes.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Under section 5 it says the carrier may be at liberty to surrender in whole or in part, not that he shall be able to increase his immunities or his rights, but the carrier may give up his rights or his immunities, thereby increasing his liability, if you please, to the shipper of the goods.

Mr. DAVIS. Or to increase any of his responsibilities and liabilities under this act. He can do either.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes.

Mr. DAVIS. He can change it absolutely. He can fix it like he wants to and it will be legal and contrary, as the next clause says, contrary to the preceding sections. In other words, after writing the law you go on and authorize them to depart from it whenever they want to depart, while the argument is made that the purpose of this legislation is to secure uniformity.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Let us see what is says:

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.

He may surrender all his immunities or he may increase his responsibilities, which is the same thing. It has the effect of giving the shipper a better contract and greater rights. That is all for the benefit of the shipper.

Mr. DAVIS. But it changes from a uniform bill of lading.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes; but I can not imagine in the case of a common carrier that such a provision of that sort would be used. It would certainly be a rare instance. Why would the shipper, unless there is some unusual situation, something extraordinary, why should the shipowner, unless there is something unusual or extraordinary? I will make a contract with you by which I will increase my responsibility.

Mr. DAVIS. Now come down to section 6. That just gives him an opportunity.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Section 6 is intended to take care of, if I read it correctly, of private carriers. Under the law to-day in the United