(i) Act or omission of the shipper or owner of the goods, his agent or representative;

(j) Strikes or lockouts or stoppage or restraint of labor from whatever cause, whether partial or general;

(k) Riots and civil commotions;

(1) Saving or attempting to save life or property at sea;

(m) Wastage in bulk or weight or any other loss or damage arising from inherent defect, quality, or vice of the goods;

(n) Insufficiency of packing;

(0) Insufficiency or inadequacy of marks;

(p) Latent defects not discoverable by due diligence;

(q) Any other cause arising without the actual fault or privity of the carrier, or without the fault or neglect of the agents or servants of the carrier, but the burden of proof shall be on the person claiming the benefit of this exception to show that neither the actual fault or privity of the carrier nor the fault or neglect of the agents or servants of the carrier contributed to the loss or damage.

(3) The shipper shall not be responsible for loss or damage sustained by the carrier or the ship arising or resulting from any cause without the act, fault, or neglect of the shipper, his agents, or his servants.

(4) Any deviation in saving or attempting to save life or property in jeopardy at sea, or any deviation agreed upon between the carrier and the shipper at the time cargo space is contracted for shall not be deemed to be an infringement or breach of this act or of the contract of carriage, and the carrier shall not be liable for any loss or damage resulting therefrom.

(5) Neither the carrier nor the ship shall in any event be or become liable for any loss or damage to or in connection with goods in an amount exceeding $500 per package or unit, or the equivalent of that sum in other currency, unless the nature and value of such goods have been declared by the shipper before shipment and inserted in the bill of lading.

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

By agreement between the carrier, master, or agent of the carrier and the shipper another maximum amount than that mentioned in this paragraph may be fixed: Provided, That such maximum shall not be less than the figure above named.

The rate of exchange shall be taken to be the rate ruling on the day of the arrival of the ship at the port of discharge of the goods concerned.

(6) Neither the carrier nor the ship shall be responsible in any event for loss or damage to or in connection with goods if the nature or value thereof has been knowingly misstated by the shipper in the hill of lading.

(7) Goods of an inflammable, explosive, or dangerous nature to the shipment whereof the carrier, master, or agent of the carrier has not consented with knowledge of their nature and character, may at any time before discharge be landed at any place or destroyed or rendered innocuous by the carrier without compensation to the shipment, and the shipper of such goods shall be liable for all damages and expenses directly or indirectly arising out of or resulting from such shipment. If any such goods shipped with such knowledge and consent shall become a danger to the ship or cargo, they may in like manner be landed at any place, or destroyed or rendered innocuous by the carrier without liability on the part of the carrier except to general average, if any.

SEC. 5. Surrender of rights and immunities: A carrier shall be at liberty to surrender in whole or in part all or any of his rights and immunities under this act, provided such surrender shall be embodied in the bill of lading issued to the shipper. The provisions of this act shall not be applicable to charter parties, but if bills of lading are issued in the case of a ship under a charter party they shall comply with the terms of this act. Nothing in this act shall be held to prevent the insertion in a bill of lading of any lawful provision regarding general average.

SEC. 6. Special conditions: 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 this stipulation 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 is this case no bill of lading has been or shall be issued and that the terms agreed upon shall be embodied in a receipt which shall be a nonnegotiable document and shall be marked as such.

Any agreement so entered into shall have full legal effect: Provided, That this section shall not apply to ordinary commercial shipments made in the odinary course of trade, but only to other shipments where the character or condition of the property to be carried or the circumstances, terms, and conditions under which the carriage is to be performed are such as reasonably to justify a special agreement.

SEC. 7. Nothing in this act shall be construed as superseding any part of the act entitled An act relating to navigation of vessels, bills of lading, and to certain obligations, duties, and rights in connection with the carriage of property," approved February 13, 1893, or of any other law which would be applicable in the absence of this act, in so far as they relate to the duties, responsibilities, and liabilities of the ship or carrier prior to the time when the goods are loaded on or after the time they are discharged from the ship. SEC. 8. The provisions of this act shall not affect the rights and obligations of the carrier under the provisions of sections 4281 to 4289, inclusive, of the Revised Statutes of the United States, or of the shipping act of 1916 (Thirtyninth Revised Statutes at Large, page 728), or any subsequent amendments thereto.

SEC. 9. The provisions of section 5 of this act shall not be construed as permitting a carrier, when surrendering in whole or in part all or any of his rights and immunities under this act by embodying such surrender in the bill of lading issued to the shipper, to discriminate against competing shippers with respect to their right to demand and receive such bills of lading. Such discrimination shall be unlawful, and shall be punishable as provided under section 12 for refusal to issue a contract of carriage in accordance with the provisions of this act.

SEC. 10. Where under the custom of any trade the weight of any bulk cargo inserted in the bill of lading is a weight ascertained or accepted by a third party other than the carrier or the shipper, and the fact that the weight is so ascertained or accepted is stated in the bill of lading, the bill of lading shall not be deemed, under the provisions of section 3, subsection 5, to be prima facie evidence against the carrier of the receipt of goods of the weight so inserted in the bill of lading, and the accuracy thereof at the time of shipment shall not be deemed to have been guaranteed by the shipper.

SEC. 11. This act shall apply to all contracts of carriage of goods by sea between ports of the United States and its possessions and ports of foreign countries. Nothing in this act shall be held to apply to contracts of carriage of goods by sea between any port of the United States or its possessions and any other port of the United States and its possessions.

SEC. 12. If any manager, agent, master, owner, or charterer of any vessel shall issue a contract of carriage in violation of the provisions of this act, or which shall contain clauses, covenants, or agreements which are declared by subsection (8) of section 3 of this act to be null and void and of no effect, or shall refuse to issue a contract of carriage in accordance with the provisions of this act, he shall be liable to a fine not exceeding $2,000 to be collected and disposed of in the same manner as provided in section 5 of the act of February 13, 1893.

SEC. 13. This act shall take effect 90 days after the date of its approval; but nothing in this act shall apply during a period not to exceed one year following its approval, to any contract for the carriage of goods by sea made before the date upon which this act becomes effective, nor to any bill of lading or similar document of title issued, whether before or after such date as aforesaid, in pursuance of any such contract as aforesaid.

SEC. 14. This act may be cited as the carriage of goods by sea act.

Other bills relating to the carriage of goods by sea were introduced in the Senate of the United States by Senator McNary (S. 3177) on March 24, 1924; by Senator Fess (S. 2915); and on December 6, 1923, by Senator McKellar (S. 427).

COMPARISON OF BRUSSELS RULES AND PROPOSED AMERICAN LEGISLATION, BY PROF. S. S. HUEBNER

The provisions in H. R. 5080 which deviate from the Brussels rules (as The Hague Rules, in view of the amendments in Brussels, have been largely referred to in recent months) have been analyzed by Prof. S. S. Huebner, as follows:

(1) Section 3, subsection 6, relating to the claims clause: The claims clause in the Brussels Rules proved a violent source of criticism during the hearing before the Committee on the Merchant Marine. The report of the Select Committee of the House of Commons and the House of Lords upheld the contenttion of the opponents of the rules as presented during our own hearing (similar criticism having been made by leading shipping interests in England) and the amended bill, proposed in the House of Lords by the Select Committee remodeled the claims clause of the rules along lines which met exactly the criticism presented in our hearing. Accordingly, subsections 6 of section 3 of H. R. 5080 corresponds to the claims clause as formulated in the British bill. Its present form has been agreed to by both the proponents and opponents of the rules.

(2) Section 4, subsection 4: This contains the revision so ardently desired by the packing and National Traffic League interests. The clause is the same as the deviation clause in the Brussels Rules, except for the insertion of the additional words "in jeopardy" and or any deviation agreed upon between the carrier and the shipper at the time cargo space is contracted for." Unless a change is made in the deviation of the rules, as here indicated, there is little likelihood that the packing and National Traffic Legue interests will cease their determined opposition against the rules.

(3) Section 4, subsection 5: $500 per package has been substituted for £100. Supporters of the rules originally desired to retain the English currency designation, but this is of course clearly impossible.

(4) Articles VII and VIII of the Brussels Rules have been eliminated in H. R. 5080 because they do not apply and are taken care of by sections contained in the latter part of the bill.

(5) Section 7: This section is entirely new and provides that the Harbor Act shall continue to apply to the periods of the shipment prior to the time the goods are loaded and to the time following their discharge from the ship. The proponents of the rules have contended all along that this is what was intended, but the opponents criticized the vagueness of the language used in the rules with respect to this important matter. Application of the Harbor Act to all portions of the voage not covered by the rules was the principal contention of the opponents at the recent hearing. Their opposition could never be allayed except through the incorporation of a provision like section 7 of H. R. 5080.

(6) Section 8: This is entirely new and provides that the rules shall not abrogate or amend various existing statutes.

(7) Section 9. This section, which is entirely new, guards against the danger of the carrier discriminating between shippers in the issuance of bills of lading more favorable than provided for by the rules. Section 5 of the rules gives the carrier the privilege of doing this by surrendering its rights and immunities granted under the rules. Section 9 declares any such discrimination to be unlawful and to be punishable as per the general penalty section (section 13). At the hearing before the Committee on Merchant Marine, as well as the one before the Shipping Board, the thought was quite freely expressed that such discrimination should by all means be guarded against.

(8) Section 10: The wording used is that of the British bill. Although not contained in the Brussels Rules the select committee of Parliament saw fit to insert the provision, because of the strong complaints raised by British coal interests. The section only affects bulk cargo, and there is every reason to believe that it is entirely agreeable to American interests. Since the British provide for such treatment to bulk cargo, it is desirable that we should do likewise.

(9) Section 11: This section excludes our coastwise trade from the operation of the rules. Through an oversight the wording of the section in H. R. 5080 does not make the rules applicable to the Philippine trade. The last sentence of the section should read: "Nothing in this act shall be held to apply to contracts of carriage of goods by sea between any port of the United States or its

possessions included in the coastwise trade and any other port of the United States and its possessions included in coastwise trade."

(10) Section 12: This section provides for a penalty. The British bill does not penalize the nonobservance of the rules. The general concensus of the opponents of the rules, however, was to the effect that a penalty ought to be provided.

(11) Section 13: This new section provides (a) that the bill takes effect 90 days after the date of approval; (b) that contracts entered into prior to this date should be protected, as they necessarily must be; and (c) prevents the shrewd issuance of contracts for long periods of time, such as 5 and 10 years, by applying a 1-year limitation. During the shipping investigation leading up to the shipping act of 1916, any number of instances presented themselves where certain prominent shippers had entered into long-term contracts with certain steamship companies guaranteeing certain favored conditions to particular shippers in question. Under such a practice it is easily possible that long-term contracts might be speedily entered into just before the rules go into effect in the United States, and such contracts might constitute a real discrimination as compared with the treatment accorded smaller shippers with respect to bills of lading.

HEARINGS ON HOUSE BILL 14166 RELATING TO THE CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA

The Committee on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, on February 13 and 14, 1923, met for the consideration of House bill 14166, relating to the carriage of goods by sea, and practically identical with the later bill (H. R. 5080), the text of which appears elsewhere in this bulletin. A complete report of the hearings was published by the Government Printing Office. It contains the text of the bill, together with statements of Norman B. Beecher, special admiralty counsel of the United States Shipping Board; Charles S. Haight, chairman of the bill of lading committee of the International Chamber of Commerce; Robert H. Bean, in behalf of the banking interests; J. M. Redpath, representing the United States Chamber of Commerce; James C. Lincoln, manager of the traffic bureau of the Merchants' Association of New York; F. H. Price, of the Millers' National Federation; William H. McGee, president of the American Institute of Marine Underwriters; I. A. Campbell, of the American Steamship Owners' Association; D. R. Englar, of the American Institute of Marine Underwriters; Gray Silver, of the American Farm Bureau Federation; C. B. Heinemann, of the Institute of American Meat Packers; James B. Payton, general counsel of the American Bankers' Association; and several others.

The reports of the hearings contain many questions by the opponents to the adoption of The Hague Rules, and the answers of the proponents to the objections. In view of the completeness of the report and its availability to anyone interested on application to the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, it is not deemed necessary to reprint portions or extracts of the hearings in the present bulletin.

CRITICISMS BY AMERICAN SHIPPERS

It is, of course, of interest to study the attitude of those opposed to the adoption of the Brussels Rules and for this reason it is thought desirable to include the following brief review of the principal objections which are made by the Institute of American Meat Packers, and which correspond quite generally to objections offered by the National Industrial Traffic League: "Generally speaking, we feel that the provisions of the Edmonds bill (H. R. 5080), introduced January 9, 1924, are, in several particulars, a considerable improvement over the Brussels Rules themselves as they now stand. We particularly approve of paragraph 4, section 4, with regard to deviation. We also approve most emphatically the provisions of section 9 which would prevent discrimination between competing shippers. We also approve most heartily of the provisions of the Edmonds bill which tie up existing American statutes definitely with the provisions of the Brussels Rules.

"In the opinion, both the provisions of the Brussels Rules themselves and of the Edmonds bill with regard to notice of loss or damage need considerable

5 Before the Committee on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Sixty-seventh Congress, fourth session.

revising. Any claim clause should allow a reasonable time for the filing of a claim after the goods come into the possession of the consignee. Under the present wording of the rules the consignee would be required to give notice of loss or damage, in writing, before or at the time of the removal of the goods. If the loss is not apparent, three days are allowed for the written notice. It appears to us that the rule approved by the Interstate Commerce Commission with regard to loss and damage claims might readily be incorporated in the Edmonds bill. The commission's rule requires notice at the time of delivery only when loss or damage is apparent. If not apparent the consignee has 30 days in which to file a written notice. Moreover, notation on the receipt constitutes the required written notice under the commission's rule. In our opinion the consignee should have at least seven days in which to file notice if the damage is apparent and if the damage is concealed he should have at least 60 days, exclusive of the time the goods may have been held in customs or in Government authority. Quite obviously, more time should be allowed with shipments that are made overseas than is allowed with shipments within the borders of the United States.

"We also feel that clarifying language should be employed to define the meaning of the word 'unit' in the section (art. 4, sec. 5) covering the measure of damages. It seems to us that the interest of both shippers and carriers would be conserved if they knew what was meant by the word 'unit'; whether the term means a package, barrel, bale, or whether the word means an entire shipment. Under the existing language the carrier might select his own interpretation and pay on either a 'package' or a unit.' Attention is directed to the fact that the language in the rules and the bill reads 'per package or unit.'

"We feel also very strongly that the carrier should not be relieved from liability in labor troubles brought about by himself. Under the existing language in both the rules and the bill a carrier might lock out a single cabin boy and thus exempt himself from all sorts of responsibilities.

"The above constitute the principal objections we have at this time, but it should not be understood that these are all of our objections. There are various others."

COMPARISON OF THE BRUSSELS RULES AND THE BRITISH CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA ACT

[Note of Judge Charles Hough, chairman of the subcommission in charge of The Hague Rules at the International Diplomatic Conference held in Brussels, October, 1922]

The object of this note is to point out the differences and the meaning of those differences between the rules as formulated by the conference in 1922, as stated by the sous-commission in 1923, and as enacted by Parliament in 1924.

66

I. The project of the Brussels conference was to enforce the rules by exchange of treaties or international conventions. Therefore the rules as a body are referred to throughout as the provisions of this convention." In the British statute this phrase is uniformly changed to the words these rules." See, for instance, article 3, section 8.

66

This is a merely formal thing and does not affect the meaning or scope of any portion of the proposed code.

II. Article 1 (b) defines the phrase "contract of carriage." The form of 1922 included within the definition of "contract of carriage" the following: "Any bill of lading or any similar document as aforesaid issued under or pursuant to a charter party from the moment at which such bill of lading or governs the relations between the carrier and the holder of the bill of lading." The sous-commission after discussion (Procès-Verbaux, p. 41) substituted the following language:

"Any bill of lading or any similar document as aforesaid issued under or pursuant to a charter party from the moment at which such bill of lading or similar document of title regulates the relations between a carrier and a holder of the same."

The language of the sous-commission has been carried verbatim into the British statute. The change noted is formal only.

III. Article 2, regulating the risks assumed by the carrier, reads, in the form put forth in 1922, to the effect that the carrier shall be subject to cer

30421-25- -8