not a final bar to your claim, and to my mind I do not think it is anything I do not like to say this before Mr. Campbell, but I do not think it is anything. Mr. CAMPBELL. Don't hate to say that on account of my feelings. [Laughter,] Mr. ENGLAR. You would always have to prove that the goods were damaged when the carrier delivered them. All this says is there is a prima facie presumption they were in good condition when delivered. What does that mean? It means you have to prove they were damaged when the carrier delivered them. You have to prove that, anyway, so that I do not think this prima facie presumption that the shipowner has is much above what he has now. Mr. HEINEMANN. Of the shipowner? Mr. ENGLAR. Of the consignee; I do not think it is much above that which he has now. (The following is the letter submitted by Mr. Englar for the record:) Hon. GEORGE W. EDMONDS, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. NEW YORK, January 22, 1923. DEAR SIR: Referring to your letter of the 16th instant and my reply of the 19th instant, I now take pleasure in sending you herewith certified copy of resolution adopted, to-day, by the American Institute of Marine Underwriters. If any action is taken by any of the other commercial organizations with which I have been in touch in connection with this matter, I will see that such action is promptly brought to your attention. I should be very much obliged for any information you can give me as to the procedure which is likely to be followed with respect to the Brussels convention, î. e. will there be any public hearings with respect to it and, if so, what body will preside over such hearings? Very truly yours, D. ROGER ENGLAR. EXTRACT OF THE MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF MARINE UNDERWRITERS, HELD IN THE BOARD ROOM OF THE BOARD OF UNDERWRITERS OF NEW YORK, AT 25 SOUTH WILLIAM STREET, NEW YORK CITY, ON MONDAY, JANUARY 22, 1923, AT 12 NOON. There were present: British & Foreign Marine Insurance Co. and Reliance Marine Insurance Co., by W. A. W. Burnett. Insurance Co. of North America, by G. C. Morris, H. T. Chester, and T. Young (Field & Cowles). Standard Marine Insurance Co. and Merchants & Shippers Insurance Co., by W. J. Roberts. Thames & Mersey Marine Insurance Co. and Union Marine Insurance Co., by F. H. Cauty. Sea Insurance Co., Marine Insurance Co., Federal Insurance Co., London Assurance Corporation, and Hartford Fire Insurance Co., by Hendon Chubb and T. H. Allen, Home Insurance Co., by L. F. Burke. Firemen's Fund Insurance Co., by H. E. Reed. Providence Washington Insurance Co. and St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co., by Wm. H. McGee, C. L. Goldby, and C. É. Buckton. Glens Falls Insurance Co., Hanover Fire Insurance Co., Continental Insurance Co., and Fidelity Phenix Insurance Co., by E. C. Torrey. Automobile Insurance Co., by C. R. Ebert. Northern Underwriting Agency, by W. A. Cale and J. F. Murphy. American Merchant Marine Insurance Co., by O. J. DuFour. Western Assurance Co. and National Liberty Insurance Co., by E. W. S. Morren. Also present: Mr. D. R. Englar and Mr. O. R. Houston, counsel, of Messrs. Bingham, Englar & Jones. Mr. Laws, counsel, of Insurance Co. of North America. Mr. William H. McGee, president) in the chair), and Mr. E, G. Driver acting as secretary. HAGUE RULES. The chairman referred to the recent pamphlet circulated among the members of the institute containing the "Draft International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to Bills of Lading," which was in fact an amendment to the original Hague rules of 1921, and in this connection Mr. Englar advised the receipt 35458-23- -5 of a letter from Congressman Edmonds indicating that he would like to learn the position of underwriters with respect to the revised rules. Mr. Laws, counsel, representing the Insurance Co. of North America of Philadelphia, who said he was still unalterably opposed to the rules, submitted his views in which he stated his objection to certain features of the rules, namely, the uncertainty as to the liability of the carriers for goods in their custody prior to loading on and after discharge from the vessel; the provisions of paragraph 6 of Article II, requiring that notice be given, within three days after delivery of the goods, with respect to any loss or damage which is not apparent; the limitation of the carriers' liability to £100 per package; and the use of the ambiguous word "convention" in Articles VIII and IX. Mr. Englar subsequently responded to the points raised by Mr. Laws, and after general discussion, Mr. Morris moved, in effect, that the new draft international convention, whilst it might be an improvement upon the original Hague rules, was not satisfactory, inasmuch as it did not make the carrier responsible, as such, under the contract of carriage, for the custody of the goods before loading and after discharge; and also because the liability of the carrier is limited, under the convention, to the sum of £100 per package. The motion of Mr. Morris received no second, and Mr. Cauty moved― "That while these rules do not meet all the points we would like to have embodied in them, we feel that as they stand they deserve the support of the institute." Motion seconded by Mr. Ebert and carried, the Insurance Co. of North America dissenting. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript of an extract of the minutes of the meeting of the American Institute of Marine Underwriters, held in the board room of the Board of Underwriters of New York, at 25 South William Street, New York City, on Monday, January 22, 1923, at 12 noon. ERNEST G. DRIVER, Secretary. (The committee thereupon adjourned until to-morrow, Wednesday, February 14, 1923, at 10 o'clock a. m.) COMMITTEE ON THE MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES, The committee met at 10 o'clock a. m., Hon. William S. Greene (chairman) presiding. The CHAIRMAN. I wish to make the following statment for the record. Mr. J. Floyd Johnston, of Appleton & Cox (Inc.); Mr. W. H. Jones, of the Marine Office of America; and Mr. H. E. Reed, representing the Firemen's Fund Insurance Co., all of whom are in attendance at this hearing, desire to have the record state that they are in entire accord with the views presented by Mr. McGee in his testimony at yesterday's hearing. The first witness this morning is Mr. Gray Silver. Give your name and address to the stenographer and state for whom you appear. STATEMENT OF MR. GRAY SILVER, WASHINGTON REPRESENTATIVE OF THE AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION. Mr. SILVER. Gray Silver. I am Washington representative of the American Farm Bureau Federation. Our group is very much interested in this measure before the committee and not in favor of it, and I would like to ask of the committee that we might have the opportunity for our transportation department to file a brief in the case. The CHAIRMAN. When do you want to file it? Mr. SILVER. Just as soon as it can be prepared. The department of transportation of the federation is in Chicago and not in Washington. The CHAIRMAN. You are not in favor of it? Mr. SILVER. We are not in favor of it. The CHAIRMAN. And you want to file a brief against it? Mr. SILVER. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. The only trouble is we will have to hold up all these hearings to wait for your brief, and it is near the end of the session. Mr. SILVER. It will be coming forth very shortly, but I can not tell at what hour or day. The CHAIRMAN. I know, but it will hardly be fair to hold up the printing of the hearings when there are Members of Congress who want to get hold of them. I will try to accommodate you as far as I can. Mr. SILVER. Thank you very much. The CHAIRMAN. I can not promise you to hold them up to the detriment of all of the people who want to get them and use them. Mr. SILVER. No; and I do not want you to misunderstand me. My notice of this hearing was short, and my purpose in appearing here to-day was to ask that we might have the opportunity of expressing our views in a written brief. The CHAIRMAN. We will give you that opportunity unless it is a matter of impossibility. Mr. HAIGHT. Might we ask if the gentleman will state, in general terms, his objections at this time? The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Are you willing to give us a general idea of the objections you have to it? Mr. SILVER. Mr. Chairman, I am not prepared to do so. Our transportation department has studied this matter and has it in hand and, personally, I am not prepared to do so. The CHAIRMAN. You have not heard the arguments in favor of it at all? Mr. SILVER. No; I have not. The CHAIRMAN. Send in your brief, and we will do what we can to help you. STATEMENT OF MR. C. B. HEINEMANN, VICE PRESIDENT, INSTITUTE OF AMERICAN MEAT PACKERS. Mr. HEINEMANN. My name is C. B. Heinemann, and I am vice president of the Institute of American Meat Packers, located at 509 South Wabash Avenue, Chicago, Ill. I represent also in this proceeding the Chicago Association of Commerce and I will now present to you their credentials: Chairman House Committee considering Brussels rules: FEBRUARY 10, 1923. This is to certify that C. B. Heinemann, vice president, Institute of American Meat Packers, an honored member of the Chicago Association of Commerce, has been appointed representative of the Chicago Association of Commerce at the hearing on Brussels rules to be held at Washington February 13, 1923. Very truly yours, THE CHICAGO ASSOCIATION OF COMMERCE. I represent also, in a limited way, the National Industrial Traffic League. Mr. HEINEMANN. I will explain each one of these organizations, Mr. Chairman, so that the committee may have a very fair conception of what we cover. The Institute of America Meat Packers was organized in 1906 as the American Meat Packers Association. In 1919, it was reorganized and christened the Institute of American Meat Packers. It is the national trade organization of the meat-packing industry and the largest industry in America in point of volume. I will now file one of our membership lists, so that the record may show just what packers are included therein. We publish this list twice yearly, January 1 and July 1, of each year. This is the January 1, 1923, list, and shows a total membership of 260. The CHAIRMAN. Do you want those names inserted in the record? Mr. HEINEMANN. I will leave that entirely with you. So far as we are concerned, it is of course immaterial. Mr. BLAND. Mr. Chairman, for one, I would like to have it in. Mr. HEINEMANN. It is entirely agreeable to us. The CHAIRMAN. You want the names of all the parties concerned put in the record? Mr. BLAND. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Very well. Mr. PRICE. Do you want the names of all of the 2,000 flour millers who are members of our organization also for the record? Mr. BLAND. We will pass on that when we come to it. Mr. PRICE. You came to it yesterday. The CHAIRMAN. If you get all of this stuff in here, nobody will read the hearings. Mr. BLAND. They may read it over in the Senate, when it gets over there. Mr. HEINEMANN. The membership of the institute does not by any means include all of the packers of the United States, but it does include those packers whose combined output probably will run from 80 to 90 per cent of the packing industry of the country. It does include all of the exporting packers of America and they are the ones primarily interested in this bill. The Chicago Association of Commerce is, of course, the usual association of commerce to be found in practically every community and is one of the largest, if not the largest, in America and includes in its membership firms and industries which do perhaps the greatest volume of business found in any industrial center of America. Coming now to the National Industrial Traffic League, I think that my representation of that body can perhaps best be handled by presenting to the Chairman, for the record, a copy of a letter written by its executive secretary, Mr. J. H. Beek, under date of January 26, 1923, addressed to Congressman Edmonds. That letter details the history of the league's consideration of The Hague rules, the action taken at their Chicago meeting in 1921, and the action subsequently taken at the New York meeting in 1922. When I left home, I had not sought to represent the league; in fact, I had rather dodged the issue. However, yesterday, after my arrival here, I received a telegram which I will pass to the chairman as a credential authorizing me to represent them. I speak for the league only in so far as its position is outlined in the letter which has been filed of record, and I want no misunderstanding on that score. (The letter and telegram filed by Mr. Heinemann are as follows:) Hon. GEORGE W. EDMONDS, THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL TRAFFIC LEAgue, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. Chicago, Ill., January 26, 1923. DEAR SIR: Replying to yours of January 16: The copy of the so-called Hague rules prepared by A. J. Wolfe, which you were kind enough to inclose, afforded us the first opportunity we have had to examine these rules since the Brussels conference, at which they were amended. The National Industrial Traffic League, an organization representing many thousand shippers in different sections of the country, has given considerable attention to these rules. At its annual meeting held in Chicago, November 9 and 10, 1921, it adopted the following preamble and resolutions: "The National Industrial Traffic League, including in its membership American shippers from all parts of the country, in convention assembled, unanimously adopted the following resolution: "Resolved, That we are opposed to the suggestions that The Hague rules be used by the United States Shipping Board, Interstate Commerce Commission, and Congress as the basis for amending the Harter Act and revising ocean bills of lading. American shippers are already on record in demanding a through export bill of lading with conditions modified to fit modern business methods. The Shipping Board was a party to this proceeding at every stage and is fully informed of our views. We respectfully urge that no modification of the form we have proposed be considered and that American shippers be granted a full hearing before any conclusion is reached with respect to The Hague rules.'"' These resolutions were telegraphed on November 9, 1921, to A. D. Lasker, chairman of the United States Shipping Board; C. C. McChord, chairman of the Interstate Commerce Commission; and to the chairman of the Subcommittee on Marine Insurance of the Committee of the Merchant Marine and Fisheries, care of the House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. The league was represented by Charles E. Herrick, of Chicago, one of our members at the conference before the Shipping Board in Washington, September 20-21, 1922, "called for the purpose of considering revision of rules for the carriage of goods by sea and his views will be found in the official stenographer's minutes, a copy of which you doubtless have. Since the Brussels conference, we have been unable to obtain any information, although the proceedings of the Brussels conference have been public property in England for at least 60 days. Prior to receiving your letter of the 16th, and inclosure, we cabled to Dr. W. R. Bisschop, secretary maritime law committee, International Law Association, 2, Doctor Johnson's Buildings, Temple, London, E. C. 4, for 1,200 copies, in order that we might send a copy to our members and get an expression of their views thereon.. These copies have not yet been received. At none of the conferences at which these rules have been considered have American shippers been allowed representation. The State Department specifically declined to give the shippers representation upon the delegation which attended the Brussels conference. British shippers, on the contrary, have had representation in every conference. The British public has been kept thoroughly advised. The American public has been kept in the dark. Under these circumstances, the National Industrial Traffic League desires to be recorded as opposed to the adoption of the so-called Hague rules, at least until an opportunity has been had to more thoroughly consider them. The National Industrial Traffic League held its annual meeting in New York on November 15-16. It was attended by some 400 representatives of shippers, many of whom represent large exporting firms. At that meeting the chairman of our bill of lading committee reported as follows: "The bill of lading committee is not yet advised of the action taken at the Brussels conference, but rumor has it that some revisions have been made. In view of this situation, the whole subject was referred back to the bill of lading committee, with instructions to make a final report after it is advised of the results of the Brussels conference, and further that it 'oppose any changes in our existing laws, unless and until it has had an opportunity to study the changes and get the views of the members of the league thereon."" This report was approved by the membership. In view of the inability of the league to obtain any information on this subject from the State Department, we respectfully submit that it is unfair for Congress to legislate on this subject until American shippers have had an opportunity to see what the rules provide and consider their effect upon their export shipments. At the conference called by the Shipping Board, held at Washington, September 20 and 21, the respresentative of the league made the following points: "First. That the league was opposed to any code of rules which was merely a voluntary agreement between shippers, carriers, and underwriters, and which did not have the force and effect of having been enacted into law; the objections to such a code of rules being: (a) There would be nothing mandatory in the use of them compelling. carriers to continue them in force for any stipulated period; (b) no penalty for violation of them; and (c) no provision compelling them to give uniform treatment to all shippers alike. "Second. The revised code of rules proposes to give carriers the right to deviate from their scheduled, or advertised voyage for their own profit, and without liability to the owners of the cargo. This would inevitably mean great loss to shippers of perishable cargo (such as packing-house products), and without any possibility of securing reimbursement from the carrier. "Third. It enabled carriers to relieve themselves from all liability to shippers in the case of strikes, lockouts, disturbances, or stoppage of labor, whether partial or general. Attention was called to the fact that this would permit a carrier to deny liability for any loss which shipper might sustain if only one or two of carriers' employees went on strike. Further, that the carrier could thus avoid liability provided it elected at any time to lock out its employees.' We do not believe that American shippers will agree to give up any of the provisions of the Harter Act until they are satisfied that the proposed Hague rules afford them the same protection, and on this point they desire an opportunity to assure themselves rather than take the judgment of the Amercan delegates who, we insist, did not represent American shippers. Yours, very truly, C. B. HEINEMANN, J. H. BEEK, Executive Secretary. CHICAGO, ILL., February 12, 1923. Care Norman Draper Institute of American Meat Packers, Munsey Building, Washington, D. C. League at annual meeting instructed bill of lading committee to "oppose any changes in our existing laws unless and until it has had an opportunity to study the changes and get the views of the members of the league thereon," following members of executive committee Ross, Blair, Bentley, Bradford, Wilmore, Haynes, Childe, and myself in informal conference here to-day directed me request you to voice opposition to Hague rules in accordance with above action. Executive Secretary can not go to Washington, and you may use this telegram before committee as your authority to speak for National Industrial Traffic League. J. M. BELLEVILLE, Chairman Executive Committee. Mr. HEINEMANN. The National Industrial Traffic League consists of approximately 1,200 members located throughout the United States, and these member ships represent largely, if not wholly, the traffic men-the men who actually deal with the steamship |