Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

I call your attention next to paragraph (d), of section 4, on page 8, lines 5 and following, of the bill. This has been changed in an effort to meet the criticisms of certain shippers with respect to the previous deviation clauses. Apart from deviations in saving or attempting to save life or property at sea, it now requires that every deviation shall be reasonalbe in order that the carrier may escape liability therefor. It again imposes a rather heavy burden upon the shipowner, who must assume all the risk and serious results that flow from an unauthorized deviation in every case. He is compelled to submit to the court, if there be litigation, the question of whether or not the deviation of which he was guilty was or was not reasonable.

Now, I understand that, in its present form, is still unacceptable to certain shippers. At the hearing before the Shipping Board I asked those shippers if they would submit a suggested form which would carry out what they desired. I do not know whether they tried to, but they did not submit any to me and this is the best thing which our combined wisdom abroad was able to devise to afford sufficient protection to the shipper and at the same time not to interfere with the necessary conduct of a shipowner's business.

The next clause (e), on the same page, is the £100 valuation clause. So much has been said in regard to that clause and it has stood up against so many attacks, and is still standing in the rules, that I shall not discuss it further. I think there again that the shipowners can make a pretty good argument against the clause as being excessive in amount, but the shipowners abroad, the representatives abroad, were willing and have been willing to concede the £100 limitation and it is here, and I do not think the rules ought to be thrown over because it is here. From the viewpoint of the shippers, of course, it is a tremendous advance.

Mr. PAUL. What is meant by these lines 17, 18, and 19, where it says

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

Mr. BEECHER. That is a clause which I sought to have eliminated at Brussels without success. It compels, and the justification for it is, that the carrier is to become, in effect, the underwriter of the shipper under the valued-policy for the amount of the shipper's excess declaration.

Mr. PAUL. It says that the declaration shall be prima facie evidence. That is plain enough. It might be prima facie evidence, but not conclusive evidence; but then you say "shall not be binding on the carrier." That would imply it had no effect on the carrier at all, that the carrier was not affected one way or the other, and would be perfectly idle.

Mr. EDMONDS. Does not the declaration there apply to a change in the valuation that may be noted in the bill of lading?

Mr. BEECHER. Of course. It applies to declaring a value of over £100.

Mr. EDMONDS. In other words, the £100 valuation would remain as against the package if nothing was said in the bill of lading; but it says, further, "unless the nature and value of such goods have been declared by the shipper before the goods are shipped and have been inserted in the bill of lading."

Mr. PAUL. Unless he has declared it: Suppose he has declared £500 instead of £100? Mr. EDMONDS. Suppose he declares $1,000 instead of $500.

Mr. PAUL. All right.

Mr. EDMONDS. It says the declaration, if embodied in the bill of lading, shall be prima facie evidence.

Mr. PAUL. Yes: but shall not be binding on the carrier.

Mr. BEECHER. Do you want it to be binding on the carrier; do you want it to be binding on the carrier if a man says "My goods are worth $100," although the carrier proves it to be simply a "gold brick"?

Mr. PAUL. No; but the words "shall be prima facie evidence" are entirely antagonistic to "shall not be binding on the carrier." It might be prima facie evidence and not conclusive on the carrier; but I do not see what the words "binding" has to do with it.

Mr. Laws. I do not see what the words or binding" have to do with it. If you leave out the words "or binding," then it is all right.

Mr. EDMONDS. That wording is in your agreement at Brussels, is it not?

Mr. BEECHER. Yes. But what I am at a loss to see is

Mr. PAUL. If it is aprima facie evidence, then it is binding until it is rebutted.

Mr. BEECHER. Of course the itention is simply to say that the carrier

Mr. PAUL. May show that it is not the fact.

Mr. BEECHER (Continuing). Is to be free to prove the actual value and that no recovery shall be had against him beyond the actual value as so proven. That is that the desire is. I confess it seems to me a little fine reasoning which gets a different eaning out of binding," but you may be right.

Mr. PAUL. In other words, I think it would be all right to let it read "shall be prima facie evidence, but not conclusive against the carrier."

Mr. BEECHER. I do not see that it alters the receipt one iota and, unlike this other suggestion which did not occur to any of the learned delegates present, although this one did not, I can see no objection to it.

Mr. PERLMAN. Is the whole paragraph necessary?

Mr. BEECHER. I think, personally, it is an iniquitous paragraph, because it makes the carrier prima facie liable for an amount which may not exist at all.

Mr. PERLMAN. Correct.

Mr. BEECHER. On the mere unsworn declaration of the shipper.

Mr. PERLMAN. And sometimes the carrier can not disprove the declaration.

Mr. BEECHER. You are right. I think from the viewpoint of the carrier it is a very harsh provision and I fought against it, but I could not win. It was a concession made to the shippers. They apparently stuck to it and the theory is this, upon which it is justified, that you are making the carrier, with respect to an excess declard value, in effect an underwriter under the valued policy. It that right, Mr. Huebner? Am I using the right term?

Mr. HUEBNER. I think you are using the right term.

Mr. PERLMAN. Under an insurance policy that would apply?

Mr. BEECHER. Yes; under a valued-policy, as I understand it, you can insure a "gold brick" and collect for its insured value; but I really never thought it was desirable to compel the carrier to go into the insurance business to that extent. Mr. PAUL. Are the rates of carriage at all based on values?

Mr. BEECHER. Oh, yes.

Mr. PAUL. That would be the occasion for it, would it not?

Mr. BEECHER. What?

Mr. PAUL. If a man had to pay a higher rate of transportation for goods of more value, then there would be a reason for declaring the value.

Mr. BEECHER. Yes; a reason for declaring the fact; but no reason for allowing him to recover his unsworn declaration of value. However, I think the carriers can reasonably protect themselves against it.

Mr. PERLMAN. How?

Mr. BEECHER. By an examination of the goods that are presented with high or unreasonable values and by charging a rate of freight commensurate with the risk. Mr. PERLMAN. Would not the United States shipper have to stand the burden of a higher rate because of this?

Mr. BEECHER. No.

Mr. PERLMAN. Would not the carrier have to charge a little more because of taking the chance that the declaration was prima facie evidence?

Mr. BEECHER. I think there is some force in that point, but apparently it never appealed to any shipper.

Mr. PERLMAN. Just think of the carrier: Wouldn't it be necessary for him to have a man with knowledge of every character of merchandise in order to properly appraise the value when it is declared, to allow them to do it; and, if they do, that burden is going to be a burden on all the shippers, because it is an expense of the business.

Mr. BEECHER. The general impression abroad, at least, was that although it was bad, it would not in practice prove to be a very heavy burden and that, for the sake of peace and to secure the unanimous support of all interests, it was a concession worth making. Mr. PERLMAN. Were the carriers satisfied with that provision?

Mr. BEECHER. No; I would not say they are satified; but, just as I explained, they are not satisfied with the £100 provision or limitation or many of the added burdens which these rules place upon them, but I think the carriers, in general, are perhaps willing to swallow the bitter pill in order to stop controversy and to have happy and contented customers who have at least gotten what they wanted. I am not speaking for the carriers, though; the carriers would rather speak for themselves, I imagine, but that is the general impression.

Now I call your attention next to section 5, at the bottom of page 9. This section permits a carrier to issue a bill of lading as much more favorable to the shipper as he sees fit to do. He can never issue a bill of lading any less favorable to the shipper; but, if he wants to, he could even revert to the bill of lading of a century ago, which assumed all liability except for the acts of God and the king's enemies. Now, there is one thing I want to call the committee's attention to in that connection and which I think possibly should be considered here, whether it is desirable or whether it is sufficiently covered by existing law to provide that the carrier shall not issue a more favorable bill of lading unless he issues it generally to all shippers alike.

Under the language of section 5, as it stands, there is no prohibition against the carrier issuing a much more favorable bill of lading to the large and favored shipper

than he issues to the ordinary run of shippers in the trade. Perhaps the provisions of the Harter Act will be considered sufficient protection against such a practice; but I suggest the wisdom of perhaps providing in this act along the lines I have indicated.

Mr. EDMONDS. Don't you think it would be just as well to cut that out about general average, at the end?

Mr. BEECHER. I think not, because, of course, no one wants to interfere, as I understand, with general average and probably the rules would have no effect upon it. But in view of the importance

Mr. EDMONDS. Don't say no one wants to interfere with it. I would like to see it abolished altogether.

Mr. BEECHER. I think general average has been subjected to much attack, but it was inserted in order to make it entirely clear that general average provisions were not affected by the act, and as long as there are those who do still believe in general average, I think it important that it should remain.

I next call attention to section 8, on page 11, prescribing to what the act is applicable: "This act shall apply to all contracts of carriage of goods by sea to, from, or between ports of the United States and its possessions and between any such ports and foreign ports."

There is no mention there of the Great Lakes, unless they are covered by the expression "carriage of goods by sea." I think it desirable that that question be not left for the courts, but be determined now and proper provision made in the bill. Whether the act ought to apply to the Great Lakes or not is a matter for the committee to consider. I do not believe that, under the international agreement, which we have signed, we are obligated to make it apply to the Great Lakes if we see fit to eliminate them.

Section 9, page 11, is intended to meet the very real objection of many shippers that the bills of lading contain innumerable provisions which may be utterly illegal, known to the carrier to be illegal, but which are deliberately inserted for the purpose of bluffing, if you please, the ignorant and unsuspecting shipper, and they have undoubtedly been successful to a very great extent in doing it. Now the purpose of this section is to impose a penalty upon a carrier if he issues a contract of carriage containing these illegal provisions and void provisions, so that not only will they not be effective in law but won't be effective in fact, in enabling the carrier to enforce settlements or permit him, on the strength of them, to decline claims to those who have not the advantage of being represented by such attorneys as I see here. The CHAIRMAN. Is that all, Mr. Beecher?

Mr. BEECHER. I think so; I think that is probably enough, anyhow.

Mr. CAMPBELL. May I ask you a question? In section 1, subsection (b), you delete the words at the top of page 2, "is negotiated," as they appear in the convention, and the words "governs the rights of the carrier and the holder of the bill of lading' have been substituted. What was the object in doing that?

Mr. BEECHER. You say as they appear in the convention. You are referreing to the copy of the convention, I suppose, published by the maritime law committee of the International Law Association?

Mr. CAMPBELL. I am referring to a copy that was sent by British friends to this country. That is the only copy we seem to be able to get hold of.

Mr. BEECHER. All right. The British publication of the draft of the convention with respect to these rules, as has been officially stated in Great Britain, is an unofficial translation. The official translation of the convention, which was signed in French, but of which there will be an official translation, has not yet been adopted, and the language used in this bill, to which you refer, is the translation of the original French, which seems to me to be more accurate than the unofficial British version. I may say I am told that the effect is substantially the same as the version you adopted.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Do you think so?

Mr. BEECHER. I do not want to discuss such intricate questions of law.

Mr. LISSNER. Whose translation of the original French was it, Mr. Beecher?

Mr. BEECHER. Whose translation is here?

Mr. LISSNER. Yes.

Mr. BEECHER. Mine.

Mr. CAMPBELL. I understood you to say that the intention was to permit the charte party to stand unaffected by the bill of lading until the bill of lading was negotiated Mr. BEECHER. No. I said as long as the bill of lading was in the hands of the original charterer.

Mr. CAMPBELL. I take it, when he passed it, it would be a negotiation in the sens in which you stated?

Mr. BEECHER. Quite likely.

Mr. CAMPBELL. But these words "governs the rights of the carrier and the holder of the bill of lading" would apply to the issuance of the bill of lading at all times.

Mr. BEECHER. As I am told by those more learned in the law than I, the bill of lading, while still held by the charterer, is simply a receipt, and its provisions govern the rights of the carrier and of the holder of the bill of lading, but reference must be had to the charter as well. Do you differ on that?

Mr. ENGLAR. That certainly is true where there is any conflict between the charter and the bill of lading.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Then that uncertainty could be cleared up by leaving the words is negotiated" in and not making the substitution.

Mr. BEECHER. It is not a substitution. As I have said, this is my understanding of the correct translation of the French which we agreed to, and unless you can point out some respect in which this does not carry out the intention as I have expressed it, or does not carry out that which you feel ought to be provided, I can see no reason for substituting the language used in the unofficial British translation for the language which the convention adopted.

Mr. CAMPBELL. It only goes to show if you are going to have uniformity that then we have to wait until the official translation comes out. If the English translate those words "is negotiated," and you translate them "governs the rights of the carrier and of the holder of the bill of lading," it is certain you do not agree, and that they do not mean the same thing.

Mr. HAIGHT. May I explain that translation? Judge Hough advises me the translation which appears in the British publication is really a mistake; that it was the phraseology considered at one part of the deliberations and subsequently abandoned, and I have here the official French and its translation. As Judge Hough told me, the official English translation which was agreed to was this:

From the moment at which such bill of lading regulates the relations between the carrier and the holder of the same.

Instead of―

** * * governs the rights of the carrier and of the holder of the bill of lading." It has absolutely the same meaning.

[ocr errors]

Mr. BEECHER. It is just a case of tweedle dee and tweedle dum.

Mr. HAIGHT. Precisely; it has the same meaning, only Judge Hough wrote me that is the official English translation, of which I brought one copy back to America. But the French is clearly that in meaning, and has no reference at all to the negotiation of the bill.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Will you give that to us again?

Mr. HAIGHT. Yes. Judge Hough's translation, which I understand is the official English translation, reads as follows:

From the moment at which such bill of lading regulates the relations between the carrier and the holder of the same.

Mr. BLAND. Can not we have a translation prepared by our State Department here or by some official?

Mr. BEECHER. The translation has been gone over by the State Department.
Mr. BLAND. What translation?

Mr. BEECHER. I should say that the French text has been translated by the State Department. It has been compared with the unofficial British translation and an effort is now being made to agree with the British upon an official translation.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Was this an official English translation or an unofficial English translation?

Mr. BEECHER. Unofficial. There is no official English translation and will be none, as I understand it, until England and America have reached an agreement as to what that translation shall be.

Mr. CAMPBELL. That is just it. They ought to agree as to the translation of that French.

Mr. BEECHER. Right.

Mr. CAMPBELL. And we have not that before us.

Mr. BEECHER. Right.

Mr. CAMPBELL. You do not know what that will be.

Mr. BEECHER. No; but this, I think, is the only point upon which there is any difference of the slighest moment, and this is of no moment, because it means exactly the same thing, so far as any lawyer here can state.

STATEMENT OF MR. CHARLES S. HAIGHT, CHAIRMAN OF THE BILL OF LADING COMMITTEE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.

The CHAIRMAN. Give us your name and address and state whom you represent. Mr. HAIGHT. Charles S. Haight, 27 William Street, New York City. I am chairman of the bill of lading committee of the International Chamber of Commerce. I speak for the International Chamber and for no one else.

The International Chamber has been more than interested in the problem of reaching, if possible, a solution of the long-standing controversy between the carriers and the shippers, cargo underwriters, and bankers. They have felt that a free transportation of the world's commodities is the most important single feature of our international life and that something should be done, if it is humanly possible, to eliminate the friction which has been developed for the last 30 years in that important branch. Mr. BLAND. May I inquire what this International Chamber of Commerce is and who composes it?

Mr. HAIGHT. The International Chamber of Commerce throughout the world seeks to perform the same functions that the United States Chamber seeks to perform in the United States. It is an international organization which has as its constituent members chambers of commerce of all the countries of the world-merchants' associations, boards of trade, and large international traders. It meets once a year or every two years in international conferences to discuss questions, such as this, which are thought to be of vital importance to international trade.

The conference at which the bill-of-lading matter was taken up was held in London in May, 1921. The International Chamber in a few weeks will have another international conference at Rome, to which the president of the United States Chamber of Commerce and many of our most distinguished American commercial leaders are going, and, in fact, have already sailed.

Mr. BLAND. Has it permanent headquarters anywhere?

Mr. HAIGHT. It has permanent headquarters in Paris.

Mr. BLAND. Who are the officers?

Mr. HAIGHT. Mr. H. M. Clemenceau, one of the most distinguished statesmen and commercial men, is president; Mr. A. C. Bedford is the American vice president, and men of that caliber are taking a very active interest in its work.

Mr. BLAND. Has it any headquarters in this country?

Mr. HAIGHT. It has headquarters with the United States chamber in the Mills Building, here in Washington.

Mr. BLAND. What countries are represented in it here?

Mr. HAIGHT. Perhaps Mr. Redpath can give you that better than I can. give you a great many of the names of the countries-Great Britain, FranceMr. BLAND. You can insert that.

I can

Mr. HAIGHT. I should say practically every country of the world of importance to-day, except China and Russia, is represented. There may be some South American countries not in it, but all of the great countries are in it.

(The list of countries furnished by Mr. Haight is as follows:)

COUNTRIES THE COMMERCIAL INTERESTS OF WHICH ARE REPRESENTED THROUGH MEMBERSHIP IN THE INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.

[blocks in formation]

Mr. HAIGHT. The present conditions governing ocean bills of lading rae, as everybody knows, completely unsatisfactory. They have been becoming more and more so as years pass. Every country in the world to-day has a different law. I think, without a single exception, every steamship company in the world almost has a different form of bill of lading and some companies have many different forms of bills of lading.

The result has been that no one, whether he was loaning money against a shipping document or was an insurer of goods in transit, could tell what his risks were or what his rights were. The shipper at all times practically has to take what is given to him. In the time of the war the steamship owner could offer any form of bill of lading he liked, and the shipper had to accept. On the other hand, when times radically changed, as they are to-day, the shipper is the man who holds the whip hand, and I said in London, and I still believe, that with half of the tonnage of the

« AnteriorContinuar »