The CHAIRMAN. Does anyone desire to ask any questions?

Mr. CAMPBELL. What do you mean when you say you give the carrier the right of greater freights-I do not remember just the phrase you used?

Mr. PLUMMER. That means, Mr. Campbell, that our organization feels that it would be better to grant to the carrier the right and the opportunity for increased freight rates, whereby, with the increased overhead, they could better safeguard the goods within their custody.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Don't you think the rates are regulated by competition?

Mr. PLUMMER. Exactly. Our organization feels that this condition that is brought about by The Hague rules or Brussels rules is one that is not helped by such a codification as has been proposed at Brussels.

Mr. BLAND. You feel you can allow greater compensation if you get greater protection in carrier's liability?

Mr. PLUMMER. Exactly; yes, sir.

Mr. CAMPBELL. If the British ship offered a cheaper rate than the American ship, you would still ship by the British or Norwegian ship as against the American if she underquoted the American ship, would you not?

Mr. PLUMMER. That would be hardly a just position to attribute to our board, Mr. Campbell, because we stand very squarely committed to American ships.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Will you ship on the American ship at higher rates than offered by the foreign ship, or will you ship on the foreign ship if it offers lower rates than the American ship?

Mr. PLUMMER. With such a convention as has been proposed here our people feel higher rates will be imposed on shipping everywhere. Those will be adjusted by competition.

Mr. BEECHER. The carrier to-day is at perfect liberty to assume all of the risks and to charge a rate of freight commensurate with the risks thus assumed, is he not? Mr. PLUMMER. It would seem so.

Mr. BEECHER. Therefore the plan which you suggest is one which needs no legislation?

Mr. PLUMMER. It would seem 30.

Mr. BEECHER. But unfortunately the carrier can not do it, because of world competitive conditions; is that not true?

Mr. PLUMMER. I would say that this convention does not give the carrier any opportunity to adjust his rates; that a rate adjustment will not result from this convention.

Mr. BEECHER. This does not affect his rates at all, and I reiterate my answer to your proposition that the reason the carrier can not carry out your plan of an unlimited liability and increased rates is not because of a lack of legislation, but because world conditions of competition prevent his doing so. Is not that true?

Mr. PLUMMER. And this Brussels convention will enable him to do so; is that the idea?

Mr. BEECHER. I am asking you; I am trying to find out your idea. I am not in any way bringing up the Brussels convention; I am not suggesting that that has any application to your remarks at all; I am only trying to suggest that it was not a lack of legislation but it is world competitive conditions which prevent the carrier from carrying out the plan you suggest, and the only legislation, therefore, which would be helpful to carry out your idea would be one of eliminating world competitiona proviso that the law of supply and demand were repealed, as it were.

Mr. PLUMMER. In the first place, we do not make the proposition; we merely suggested this proposition of the Brussels rules do not go through. We are not offering another proposition.

Mr. BEECHER. Your criticism is purely destructive and you offer no constructive suggestions whatever?

Mr. PLUMMER. We offer this constructive suggestion that shipping and shipping interests and shippers get together on a much larger scale than they have done heretofore in this country, on behalf of the shipping interests and the shippers in this country and discuss the question very thoroughly before committing ourselves to anything. Mr. BEECHER. Are you satisfied with the existing state of law?

Mr. PLUMMER. Certainly not.

Mr. BEECHER. You think that some legislation should be passed?

Mr. PLUMMER. Assuredly.

Mr. BEECHER. But you have no suggestion as to what it should be, except you are opposed to what the 24 maritime nations have agreed upon?

Mr. PLUMMER. We are opposed to the convention as framed in Brussels.

Mr. HEINEMANN. Do you understand any one nation has agreed upon this?

Mr. PLUMMER. We do not understand that at the present time.

Mr. BEECHER. You are technically correct. My statement should have been the representatives of the 24 nations.

Mr. BLAND. Was it not stated here the other day, or this morning, that the representatives of the British Government, or some organization in Great Britain, was already making modifications?

Mr. HEINEMANN. That was with respect to the 1921 rules.

Mr. BLAND. Possibly so.

Mr. HEINEMANN. Yes, sir.

Mr. BLAND. You were the man who stated that.

Mr. HEINEMANN. Yes.

Mr. BEECHER. I think there have been a great many changes since the 1921 rules. Mr. BLAND. You think the committee might investigate, Mr. Plummer, as to whether they could not fix a liability upon carriers bringing goods into America and carrying goods from America so as to make these carriers liable just as the domestic carriers are liable?

Mr. PLUMMER. Exactly. And, in particular, our people ask that this hearing be lengthened and amplified so as to bring about discussions from every point of view, with every possible interest represented. That is our main thought. It is not one of destruction, except so far as the discrimination caused by section 6 of your bill. To that, they are unqualifiedly opposed.

Mr. CHINDBLOM. Your principal point, then, is that further opportunity for a hearing on this matter should be afforded?

Mr. PLUMMER. Assuredly.

Mr. CHINDBLOM. Have you in mind any people who want to be heard on it, who are not here to-day?

Mr. PLUMMER. There has been a lapse of about 11 days between the publication of this bill, or the introduction of this bill, and this present hearing. That has not given the people on the Pacific coast, the people in the Gulf States, or in the interior, an opportunity to be fully heard. We feel, in fact we know from correspondence throughout the country, that there are a great many more interests who would like to be heard than it is possible to hear at this time.

Mr. CHINDBLOM. I suggest that you tell them to advise the committee.
Mr. PLUMMER. Undoubtedly, they are in the process of doing that now.

The CHAIRMAN. I will suggest that there will be no action taken at the present session of Congress; it will go over until December and will have to be reintroduced at that time. This is simply to draw out information.

Mr. PLUMMER. I understand.

The CHAIRMAN. Because no action can be taken at this session. It would take the action of both the Senate and the House and the Senate is already blocked up with business now. Our calendar is pretty near clear, but there is no use for our getting too much excited at present, because we could not get anywhere if we should pass this bill.

Mr. BLAND. Possibly Mr. La Follette would like to have this bill come on in the Senate.

The CHAIRMAN. Undoubtedly. He is not alone in that, probably, but unfortunately he is a leader over there. But this bill will not go over to the Senate at this session, so he will not get a chance to block this.

Mr. QUINN. You are of the opinion that our shippers and ship-owners should have a little family conference before they went into this Brussels convention?

Mr. PLUMMER. That is the position of our people in New York, yes, sir-not only that there should have been this family conference, but a very general conference as between the shippers and all other interests before any legislation is framed or any convention is framed.

Mr. BEECHER. Did not the Shipping Board attempt to have that family conference you referred to, at this meeting in September, before the European conference was held?

Mr. PLUMMER. They did; I remember the conference.

Mr. BEECHER. I thought we had a very successful family party at that time Everybody had an opportunity to be heard, including your association. And I recall (and perhaps you will correct me if I am wrong) that your objection to this same Article VI was then considered and I asked your association to kindly frame any provision which would meet the objections which you had raised to it, so that we could consider that abroad and endeavor to meet your views. Was that ever done? Mr. PLUMMER. It was, and communicated to the committee.

Mr. BEECHER. It was not before this committee; it was before the Shipping Board. Mr. PLUMMER. I do not recall whether a communication was addressed specifically to the Shipping Board, but there was to this committee.

Mr. BEECH R. Then you never gave the delegates of the United States abroad any opportunity to meet your views?

Mr. PLUMMER. I can not say that we did not; I do not personally recall that.

STATEMENT OF MR. CARY E. QUINN, WASHINGTON COUNCIL, AMERICAN HARDWARE MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION.

Mr. QUINN. I should like to say a word. I feel I should have said that word along with Mr. Campbell yesterday, because he expressed himself as not bitterly opposed to this bill; neither are we.

The CHAIRMAN. Give the stenographer your name and state who you represent. Mr. QUINN. Cary E. Quinn; Washington Council American Hardware Manufacturers' Association.

The CHAIRMAN. Is that in this city?

Mr. QUINN. No.

Mr. CHINDBLOM. Are you an attorney in Washington?

Mr. QUINN. No: I merely represent the organization in Washington in some such matters as this. We are and always have been in favor of any move that will bring about a standardization in shipping documents and shipping as a whole. We are large shippers; I am unable to say, as Mr. Heinemann did, exactly how much we carry, but we carry all we can.

My organization feels, however, that it should like to have a little further time to consider exactly what these Hague rules are going to mean. I was sent down here to-day and yesterday largely to get information. We might have been guilty of not having kept up with what was going on; possibly we have fallen into the habit that others have fallen into, of feeling that there are quite a few of these conventions being called to discuss sundry matters, usually in The Hague or somewhere else; but, as my understanding goes, so far as the present bill is concerned, we are not opposed to the principle of the bill, but we object only (and if I understand the sense of the hearing, from what has come up here, it is not in opposition to the intent of the committee), to the extent we would like to have certain portions of the bill made a little clearer with respect to the liability of the carriers and the responsibility of the carriers. I might say here that my organization expects to prepare a brief in detail, so that I won't take up your time on that point now.

We should further like to be certain that this bill is not going to be enforced at any time unless it carries with it a rider that it will be contingent on acceptance by other nations, and I believe that, also, is not in opposition to the attitude of the committee. And I might say, to conclude my expression on the matter, that we stand, at the present time, opposed to any bill unless these things are done and, in all probability, when the bill comes up again, as I understand it probably will, at the next session, will be in favor of it, because I believe at that time it will carry those two changes.

That is all I have to say, gentlemen.

The CHAIRMAN. Does any one desire to ask the gentleman any questions? If not, is there any one else present who would like to be heard.

Mr. HAIGHT. I would like to say a few words in reply to Mr. Heinemann.

The CHAIRMAN. All right.

FURTHER STATEMENT OF MR. CHARLES S. HAIGHT.

Mr. HAIGHT. As I indicated at the outset of my argument, my interests are those of the International Chamber of Commerce, which is a little broader than a separate national organization; but I do not believe that those interests differ from the interests of the American chamber in any particular.

I would like to reply to some of the points made by Mr. Heinemann, with a view of getting a little more clearly, perhaps, before the committee, since his argument, the really substantial points which he raised.

He has made a strong argument that the Harter Act ought to apply before the goods are loaded and after they are discharged. The rules in terms as precise as the human tongue can frame them, it seems to me, are restricted to a certain period, they cover only from the time the goods are loaded on the ship until they are discharged from the ship. If they cover no other period, they can affect the rights or obligations in no other period; but if the perfectly obvious statement needs to be restated, by all means let us restate it; let us put at the beginning of the rules the words that they apply only to international transit and then definitely say that they do not apply to anything but international transit and that the law now governing before and after loading and discharge remains the same. When we mean a thing, we might as well say it seven times as not, if you desire to do so.

When the present rules are compared with the Harter Act the committee heard Mr. Heinemann this morning subject them to pretty stringent criticism, but he has been absolutely unable to point out any particular wherein the rules are less favorable

to the shipper except in the one perfectly trivial point which Mr. Beecher brought out yesterday and on which, I think, from the question I asked, indicated that only one lawyer in the room, in the course of a combined practice, perhaps, of 100 years, has ever had a case. Mr. Englar said he has had one case that devolved on this question of whether seaworthiness is a condition precedent to the benefit of the Harter Act. Surely a trivial matter of that kind is not going to wreck our whole enterprise as against the fact that Mr. Heinemann, after a painstaking investigation of 20 months, can find no particular wherein the shipper is worse off than he is to-day, and we have the three great reforms wherein the shipper is tremendously benefited-the £100 per package, the claims clause, and the burden of proving pilferage and other claims, for which reform, as you know, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Edmonds, a clamor has been made for years. They are not available to the shipper. A fourth point which has been productive of more confusion, perhaps, than any other, is where the shipper has had to put into his bill of lading that the shipowner is to have the benefit of insurance placed by the shipper. That never was a conscionable provision to put in your bill of lading that the carrier is not responsible for any risks that can be insured against, which means that the other man pays the premium and he takes the benefit of it. That is wiped out.

Now, when we compare the rules with the Harter Act, the great benefits to the shipper stand out perfectly obviously to any man who reads the rules with frankness. I think those advantages ought to be afforded to American shippers; they ought to be afforded to the merchants of the entire world. America is in a position where, if we will take the lead, there is no question but what the rest of the world is ready to fall into line on uniformity; but if Âmerica stands up and tries to block it, very likely we

can not.

Mr. CAMPBELL. On that point, do you mean if we should go ahead and adopt something entirely different from the Brussels convention that the rest of the world would fall in behind us?

Mr. HAIGHT. No; I do not. I say if we will to-day take the lead on the uniform rules which have now been agreed to by practical men, I do not believe there is any question but what the other 23 nations which have agreed to the rules, so far as their diplomatic representatives go, will ratify the rules; but if we refuse to accept those rules I believe the rest of them will say, "What's the use? America won't come in; we can never make a success of it. Let us go back to where we were. And the whole battle will have to be fought over again. And, for one, I am getting fairly tired. The International Chamber has had me working now for 20 months. I am not going to be able to live on the glory of the proposition much longer.

As I say, by comparison of the rules and the Harter Act, there is no question about the desirability, from the shippers' standpoint, of accepting the rules; and we really come down now to Mr. Heinemann's real opposition, namely, that he does not like the Harter Act. He opposes these rules because, if we accept them, they will become fixed law; and what he wants is the McKellar bill. He wants an unlimited liability forced upon the ocean carrier-no exemption from errors of navigation, no exemption from errors in management of the ship. Now, does Congress to-day, which is trying to foster American shipping, want to follow Mr. Heinemann to the extent of placing upon the American carrier a responsibility which no carrier on the sea has ever been required to bear heretofore and which no carrier, except the American, will ever be asked to bear? The McKellar bill is a precise copy, word for word, of the old Nelson bill which was debated fully in the Senate 10 or 15 years ago and definitely discarded, and which is never going to be passed, in my judgment.

Now, I think it is fair for this committee to remember when you hear such arguments as Mr. Heinemann has made that we did have delegates representing the United States at Brussels, and while Mr. Heinemann may think that the Secretary of State and the President ought to have chosen some representative of the packers to represent this country, they did not think so. But in Judge Hough, of our Circuit Court for the Second Circuit, I think most people will recognize the fact that the President chose probably the best qualified man this country has, by virtue of his long practice and by virtue of his 16 years on the bench, during which time he has handled admiralty questions day after day. Is it to be assumed that because a clause suits Judge Hough and Mr. Beecher, the admiralty counsel of the Shipping Board, but does not suit Mr. Heinemann, that the packers are necessarily right and our experts are wrong? I should say the presumption would be rather the other way.

Now, surely the majority throughout the world should have some influence in world questions; surely the majority should have some influence in American questions, and Mr. Heinemann has stated, quite frankly, he thinks, throughout the British Empire, that the shippers are now unanimous in wanting the rules. I can not deny that, in America, the only really definite opposition that we have had in the last

20 months has been that which the packer himself has voiced or has instigated. Now, if throughout the world the bankers are unaminous to a man, practically; if throughout the world the cargo underwriters are unanimous practically to a man; if to-day the shipping conference of the world has said we will take the rules, and the Shipping Board comes here, although not officially. but through Mr. Beecher, but if it is true that the American steamship owners and the Shipping Board are not going to oppose the rules, we have the three interests unanimous.

Then we come to the shippers. The United States Chamber of Commerce, the 1 Merchants Association of New York, the Foreign Trade Council (the great American organization in foreign trade, which does nothing else), and organizations like that, without a dissenting voice approve these rules, surely one man who is picking out little details and engaging in rather hypercritical criticism, it does not seem to me that it should wreck the enterprise in toto. Now, when the foreign shipper unanimously accepts these rules (and you will recognize he has the same problems that the packer has; that his problems do not in any way differ), if he accepts the rules because he sees in them an advantage which more than overweighs any objections and I think every man to-day will say, without hesitation, that the rules are unquestionably what he wants, unless he wants to defeat the rules in order to get the McKellar bill, and then, of course, he will keep on fighting them-those are substantial answers to Mr. Heinemann's main arguments, and the unsubstantial ones I would like to treat in just a word. Of course, it makes no difference whether Mr. Heinemann was or was not heard, if the rules are right. If they are right, well and good. But one of the strong arguments Mr. Heinemann has made against the rules is that he had no opportunity to be heard in voicing his opposition. Now I want to explain the full facts to you about that, because I would not willingly have had anybody kept in ignorance of anything that has taken place in connection with these rules because, by a stroke of great ill luck, I was named as the American representative of the bill of lading committee of the international chamber and it was my business to handle the campaign of education in America. And I came back from Europe in August, 1921, for the purpose of frankly laying the whole subject of the rules before every man that I could reach in America. The rules as they stand to-day are the rules that we had drafted then, except in so far as they have been changed for the benefit of the shippers. There is no argument that can be made to-day against the rules that could not be made then. Mr. Heinemann has to-day started to make a number of criticisms and then said, “Well, that has 'been covered." And we have been trying to cover them and he has had these rules and has studied those rules for twenty months. The first argument I had, as the representative of the International Chamber in this country, was before the traffic committee of the Institute of American Meat Packers and I took the time and the trouble (and, incidentally, spent the necessary money) to go to Chicago to meet Mr. Herrick, the chairman of that committee, and his entire committee, and I spent, as I remember, from 2 p. m. until 7 p. m. one night putting the whole subject up to the meat packers. They were not kept in ignorance and they voiced the same objections we have heard to-day.

I went out to Cleveland and spoke before a committee of the Cleveland Chamber of Commerce and there again the packers were represented and, unless I am much mistaken, fully stated their comments at a subsequent meeting.

At the Manufacturers and Exporters Association in New York, at their annual convention a year ago, I was invited to speak on behalf of the rules and Mr. Heinemann in opposition, and we had a joint debate running over a couple of hours, and again he was heard and expressed all of his arguments he has expressed to-day, and still they passed a resolution in favor of the rules.

Then before the Foreign Trade Council, in Philadelphia, last May, five or six hundred men engaged in traffic heard Mr. Heinemann and heard me, and again Mr. Heinemann voiced all of his objections, and still the Traffic League has passed resolutions and is in favor of the rules.

And last May the United States Chamber of Commerce devoted a considerable part of its annual meeting to a full discussion of The Hague rules. There was a group meeting, unfortunately not well attended, where no resolution was passed, whereupon we asked for a hearing before the resolutions committee. Mr. Strong of Chicago was the chairman of that committee. Mr. Herrick and Mr. Heinemann were both invited before the committee.

Mr. HEINEMANN. I beg your pardon; I was not.

Mr. HAIGHT. You may not have been invited, but you were there.

Mr. HEINEMANN. I was not.

Mr. CHINDBLOM. Was that Mr. Silas H. Strong?

Mr. HAIGHT. Mr. Silas H. Strong of Chicago was the chairman of that resolutions. committee. Mr. Herrick submitted there the arguments which Mr. Heinemann has largely read here to-day from print.