The CHAIRMAN. Now is there anyone else who desires to be heard in support of the measure?

Mr. DRAPER. I do, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you give your name?

Mr. DRAPER. Norman Draper, of the Institute of American Meat Packers. I desire to appear in support of the bill with certain amendments that have been agreed upon between the representatives of the steamship companies and the International Chamber of Commerce and the shippers as represented by me.

Mr. BLAND. You were the people who were opposing it before, were you not?

Mr. DRAPER. Yes, sir; and we have agreed with these people that certain things ought to be done to protect their interests and our interests.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Mr. Chairman, before we go into this matter, I want to reserve the right, if it becomes apparent, to cross-examine these people. We have in my State large tobacco interests and cottonmilling interests that do a lot of shipping by sea. I was not a member of this committee when we had these hearings before, but I want to serve notice on these gentlemen who are favoring it that this legislation, according to my notion, is very drastic and very much against the shippers, as I read it. Now, as I say, there are large tobacco interests in my country and cotton milling interests. I do not know just how they feel about it and I would like to have the privilege, if it becomes necessary, to get in touch with those folks and find out just how they think it will affect them. They ship millions and millions of dollars worth of goods by sea.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course, we would not want to cut off anyone who felt themselves affected by this legislation and I would suggest, Mr. Abernethy, that you notify these parties of the pendency of the hearings and suggest to them that they get here at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. ABERNETHY. I am not sure they are going to oppose it; but if the Chamber of Commerce is active for this, before we go into this matter, I want to call particular attention to section 2 under rights and immunities.

The CHAIRMAN. Can not we finish the cataloguing of the witnesses first?

Mr. ABERNETHY. That is all right. The only reason I am speaking now is that if it is scheduled to go through rapidly, you know, I just wanted to scotch as we went along and, of course, I am not going to try unduly to delay the hearings, but I thought I would serve notice on these people who are favoring the bill that they might as well deal with the cotton people and the tobacco folks if they expect me to go along with the matter. They may already have something from them. You see, I have not heard a thing at all from them, but I do know, take the State of North Carolina, for instance, that the textile industry and the great manufacturing industry, it may be they have come in with the meat packers and say it is all right with these amendments. I do not know.

The CHAIRMAN. It has been a matter of a good deal of interest to me that so few business interests indicated their attitude towards this legislation, either affirmatively or in opposition. I have heard from a good many chambers of commerce and organizations of that

sort.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Mr. Chairman, for the benefit of the record, you see the men on the chambers of commerce, you take our good friends and I am not criticizing them, the United States Chamber of Commerce-they become convinced that certain legislation ought to pass; then they send down their views to the local chambers of commerce and oftentimes the large shippers do not get just what it is all about. But I see some things in this bill which, to my mind, are very radical departures, and I am not saying I am opposing it and I assure you I am not going to delay the matter unduly, anyhow. The CHAIRMAN. I suggest, then, that you notify these interests in North Carolina that the bill is before the committee for hearings and that they will have their day in court if they move with promptness. Mr. ABERNETHY. Thank you, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, who else desires to be heard in support of the measure?

Mr. BEEK. I do not know, Mr. Chairman, right now whether I am opposed. I represent the National Industrial Traffic League. My name is Beek; J. H. Beek. We have been before this committee on the previous hearings and we have been opposed, very much opposed, to some provisions of this bill. We almost got together, however, on H. R. 13339, the so-called Edmonds bill, which I think this committee recommended favorably, but it never got any further. Now, during the past year, we have, after a good many conferences and negotiations with Mr. Haight, who is one of the proponents of this bill-while we have not gotten tgoether entirely, we have ironed out some of the most serious objections, at least, and we are in a position now where we can support this bill. But I would like to reserve the right to hear it discussed, to hear what the Shipping Board has to say, and then I will determine my position-except to say this, that we are more nearly together than we have ever been before.

The CHAIRMAN. Then you will be recorded as a witness and whether you are for it or against it will develop later.

Mr. DAVIS. I desire to ask the gentlemen a question or two. Now will you tell us something about the organization you represent. Is it an organization of shippers?

Mr. BEEK. It is an organization of shippers entirely. No one representing any railroad interests, or any other commercial interests that does not receive and ship freight would be eligible for membership. It is distinctly a shippers' organization with memberships from one end of the country to the other, from New York to San Francisco, Duluth to New Orleans.

Mr. DAVIS. And you are naturally interested in this bill from the point of view of the protection or looking to the protection, as you view it, of the shippers?

Mr. BEEK. Absolutely. It is the shippers interests that we hope we represent, that we try to represent.

Mr. DAVIS. Do you expect to remain here at the hearings so that you could point out the particular provisions as to which you are not in full accord?

Mr. BEEK. Yes. I shall remain for the hearings unless they are strung out very unduly, which I apprehend they will not be. But either way, I will be here.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Hold on; I do not know whether they will, or not, because I have some very well-defined views on it. I want to

serve notice on the chairman of the committee and everybody else interested that unless I can become convinced these big shippers, the shippers in my State, particularly-that it is not deterimental to their interests, I might as well serve notice on the committee that I am not going unduly to delay it, but I do think there are some very drastic provisions. It looks to me like it is very much like a bill of lading for a railroad company, that it just protects the fellow who carries the goods and does not look out much for the other fellow. From a casual reading of the bill, that is the opinion I get.

The CHAIRMAN. Without getting into a discussion of the bill now, I want first to find out who is to be here as witnesses, and can not you discuss it later when the witnesses take the stand.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Go ahead.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, who else is there who wishes to be heard in connection with this bill? Is the representative of the Shipping Board here?

Mr. MADIGAN. T. H. Madigan, counsel to the committee on legislation, United States Shipping Board. Mr. Chairman, the statement I desire to make at this time is that Judge Parker, general counsel of the Shipping Board, expected to be here at 10.30. He is at present attending a meeting of the Shipping Board that started at 10 o'clock this morning and he will be here at any moment, and he desires, on behalf of the Shipping Board, to make a statement in regard to this bill.

The CHAIRMAN. Can you indicate to us whether the Shipping Board generally in favorable to this legislation, or opposed to it? Mr. MADIGAN. My impression is that the Shipping Board is generally favorable to the legislation.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, are there any other witnesses, so far as any one knows, who desire to be heard? Perhaps this is an appropriate time to indicate I have here a letter from the president of the United States Chamber of Commerce indicating its approval of the legislation, and at the appropriate time in the proceedings perhaps this letter should be read into the record. I will not do it now. Now, perhaps it would be advisable to start the hearings with Mr. Haight, who represents the organization which has been most active in drafting and furthering the proposals embodied in the legislation. Will you take the stand, Mr. Haight, and give your name and indicate the capacity in which you appear?

STATEMENT OF CHARLES S. HAIGHT, 27 WILLIAM STREET, NEW YORK CITY, CHAIRMAN OF THE BILL OF LADING COMMITTEE INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

Mr. HAIGHT. Charles S. Haight; 27 William Street, New York City; chairman of the Bill of Lading Committee of the International Chamber of Commerce.

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, the general subject of uniform rules governing ocean bills of lading has been debated in almost every country of the world since 1921 and debated more or less continuously. The war brought out a great many irregularities and as the result of those irregularities shippers the world over had been very seriously prejudiced. While the war was still on, at one of the conferences held by Great Britain and the representatives of all of

her dominions, the dominion representatives stopped the discussion of the war and told Mr. Lloyd George, then prime minister, that they proposed to have the law of Great Britain changed in the interest of shippers, in order that steamship companies would be held to a much more strict and rigid obligation with reference to cargo.

Under the general theory of the freedom of contract, a bill of lading had developed into a document which said, in many words, that the carrier was responsible for nothing under any circumstances. As nearly as that result could be arrived at, it had been put into the bills of lading. In the United States, as far back as 1893, we had passed the Harter Act, under which it was provided, rigidly, that carriers would not be allowed to exempt themselves from liability for their own negligence, except under very restricted circumstances. They were bound under all circumstances to make their ships seaworthy, to properly man and equip their ships, to properly stow and care for their cargo, and discharge it, and every clause in the bill of lading which lessened that obligation was by the Harter Act declared to be void.

That was the first great step taken the world over to protect the shippers as against the old-fashioned idea of freedom of contract. Canada followed that law in their Canadian Harter Act, Australia followed that law; England never had followed it and the Continent never had followed it. At the conference of which I have spoken, British shippers combined with all the Dominion shippers and insisted that legislation similar to our American Harter Act must be written onto the statute books of Great Britain. It was then that the International Law Association started on the theory of codifying the Harter Act into legislation. In the United States and in England we have the common law. On the Continent they have no common law; it is all code. And what we started out to do in January, 1921, was to put in the form of a code, so that it could be adopted in all countries, virtually, the law as it had been put into force in this country in 1893, with two or three major additions intended exclusively for the protection of cargo shippers. The first addition was a restriction of the limitation of liability per package. Our Supreme Court has held that under the Harter Act a carrier could write into his bill of lading a clause restricting him to a liability under any circumstances of a given sum per package; but the liability per package had been reduced in some instances so low that shippers felt it amounted to a denial, although legally it was held to be valid. The Hague rules say that no carrier shall be allowed to limit his liability to a lower figure than $500 per package. That is unquestionably much higher than the average value per package. And the shipper who is shipping cargo more valuable, may always, in his bill of lading, stipulate for a higher value and pay a slightly higher frieght rate and get full protection.

The second chief advantage to the shipper added to the Harter Act by the rules was in the claims clause. Bills of lading had been containing clauses requiring a man to serve notice of damage within a few days and to bring suit to recover within a few months, or sometimes weeks, failing which his claim was canceled entirely. Those clauses had been held to be valid in our Federal courts. Under the rules, in the interest of the shipper, it was provided that any shipper and any consignee could have a full year in which to bring suit.

Mr. ABERNETHY. I do not want to interrupt the orderly course of procedure, but I would like, if you will, for the purpose of the record, to have you analyze this bill for the benefit of the committee and show the benefits that the shipper can get out of it.

Mr. HAIGHT. I am trying my best, sir, to do that.

Mr. ABERNETHY. As I see it, we do not get anything; that is my reaction.

Mr. DAVIS. That, I understand, he is going to, but he is going to make a general statement first.

Mr. LEHLBACH. The witness is making a general statement of the purposes of the act and undoubtedly, later, will either of his own motion or at the suggestion of the committee take the bill up in detail. But I think it is useful to have a general statement.

Mr. ABERNETHY. I think he is giving a historical review of what has led up to this.

Mr. HAIGHT. I think, Mr. Abernethy, I can make it clearer to you if I give you the general idea first.

Mr. ABERNETHY. I do not want to interrupt.

Mr. SLOAN. I have detected four or five distinct advantages from what you have stated. I do not know whether there are any more, or not, but I think I have detected four or five, already.

Mr. HAIGHT. I can give you a general statement first and then take up the details later on.

The claims clause was a terrifically difficult obstacle for the shippers to get over. The representative of the Millers Federation said to me, that in his judgment, 50 to 60 per cent of their claims were barred by that one clause, because often they did not know that they had a claim until the time within which, under the bill of lading, they had to make their claim and bring suit had elapsed, when goods were going a long distance and the mail did not get back to the shipper in time to post him before his time under his bill of lading had absolutely barred him.

Mr. DAVIS. And do I understand that the Federal courts held the limitation as to time for filing a claim or bringing suit was valid, even though within that time the shipper did not have notice of the loss?

Mr. HAIGHT. A clause as short as 90 days has been held to be valid by our Federal courts.

Mr. SLOAN. That is, held to be not unreasonable?

Mr. HAIGHT. Not unreasonable and was, therefore, enforceable. The theory was, of course, when a carrier discharged his goods at destination, it was the business of the consignee to examine the goods and to find out if he had a claim, and that he could not, often dishonestly, delay his claim until all chances of survey had been lost, all chances of finding the real facts had been destroyed, and then come in and say "I have got a claim." Now, the principle of the restriction was sound; the application of it to everybody, at times, did a terrific amount of injury. So that the shippers, who were the militant party at The Hague conference, said "We won't agree with anybody on anything unless we have a full year in which to bring our suit, barred by nothing," and that is written into this bill and into the Code for international adoption.

Mr. SLOAN. It is an extension, then, of the contractual limitations. which the shippers are making or attempting to make and now seeking the sanction of law?