and asks Congress to enact legislation for The Hague rules with such interpretations as may be deemed necessary.

1923: The last annual meeting testified to the chamber's continuing interest in The Hague rules respecting the bills of lading under which merchandise is carried by sea. These rules should result in rights and liabilities as between vessels and shippers which are equitable to both, are suited to the conditions of carriage of goods by sea, and are calculated to facilitate the use of ocean transportation. After a year of discussion, The Hague rules were, in the latter part of 1922, revised in order that they may further promote these purposes. In the revised form they have been accepted by a diplomatic conference, in which the United States was represented. Appropriate action should be taken for ratification of these rules in order that further progress may be made.

HAGUE RULES-RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED BY EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE AMERICAN STEAMSHIP OWNERS' ASSOCIATION, JANUARY 27, 1925

Whereas the American Steamship Owners' Association recognizes the desirability of securing, so far as possible, uniformity in shipping documents and in the principles of law governing the carriage of goods by sea; and

Whereas the rules recommended by the International Maritime Conference held at Brussells in October, 1922, have, with some modifications, been enacted into law by England and other maritime nations; and

Whereas there is pending in Congress H. R. 11447, introduced by Congressman Edmonds, which, with some modifications, embodies the rules as adopted by said International Maritime Conference; and

Whereas notwithstanding that the rules and the Edmonds bill will increase the burdens of carriers, the American Steamship Owners' Association recognizes that the enactment of the bill, with proper amendments, will secure substantial uniformity in shipping documents, and in the principles of law governing the carriage of goods by sea and that for the sake of securing such uniformity the association should, in general, approve a bill of the purport of the Edmonds bill: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That this association approves of the enactment of a bill which shall give legal effect to the rules for the carriage of goods by sea, substantially as adopted by the International Maritime Conference held at Brussels in October, 1922, except that the association considers that the bill should permit such freedom of contract between carrier and shipper as will secure to the carrier the right of deviation in a proposed voyage as may be necessary to meet the requirements of trade, and except with such other minor changes as shall meet with the approval of counsel of the association.

A true copy attest:

WINTHROP R. MARVIN.

Vice President and General Manager.

MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF MARINE UNDERWRITERS HELD AT 56 BEAVER STREET ON TUESDAY, MAY 6, 1924, at 2.30 P. M.

Present:

Thames & Mersey Marine Insurance Co., and Union Marine Insurance Co., Mr. A. B. Grant.

Sea Insurance Co., Marine Insurance Co., Federal Insurance Co., London Assurance Corporation, and Hartford Fire Insurance Co., Mr. G. B. Ogden. Home Insurance Co., and Franklin Fire Insurance Co., Mr. L. F. Burke. United States Lloyds, Indemnity Mutual Marine Insurance Co., and Western Assurance Co., Mr. J. F. Johnston.

St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co., and Providence Washington Insurance Co., Mr. William H. McGee.

Continental Insurance Co., Fidelity Phenix Insurance Co., Glens Falls Insurance Co., and Hanover Fire Insurance Co., Mr. W. H. Jones.

Aetna Insurance Co., Mr. R. E Stronach.

American Merchant Marine Insurance Co., Mr. W. A. Sorensen.

National Liberty Insurance Co., Mr. H. W. Beebe; also Mr. D. R. Englar, counsel.

Mr. L. F. Burke, president, in the chair.

H. R. 5080 RELATING TO CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA

The chairman calling the meeting to order stated that its purpose was to receive the report of the special committee appointed, vide minutes of meeting held on February 15 last, to take under consideration H. R. 5080 introduced in the House of Representatives on January 9, 1924, by the Hon. G. W. Edmonds, copies of which report had been circulated with notice of the meeting. original report signed by the members of the committee, together with printed copy of H. R. 5080 is attached following these minutes.)

(The

Mr. Ogden, chairman of the committee, advised that the report had really been drawn up by Mr. D. R. Englar, who had assisted the committee as counsel, and that he had received the hearty cooperation of the members of the committee.

The changes suggested by the committee and dealt with in the report were generally considered, Mr. Englar stating his opinion with respect to some of the points raised in the discussion.

After full discussion of the annexed report of the committee, the following resolution was moved, seconded and unanimously carried:

66

'Resolved, That the annexed report of the committee be adopted and indorsed by the institute, and that the same committee be continued, with authority to cooperate with other trade organizations, consult counsel, represent the institute at congressional hearings and take such other steps as may be necessary and proper to support the passage of H. R. 5080, with the amendments recommended in the committee's report."

Mr. Ogden mentioned that he had sent a copy of the committee's report to Mr. Haight, advising him, however, that the same had not been adopted by the institute at that time. This action by Mr. Ogden was approved and it was suggested that Mr. Haight should be empowered to use the report in any way he desired.

On motion, adjourned.

ERNEST G. DRIVER, Secretary.

REPORT OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE APPOINTED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF MARINE UNDERWRITERS TO CONSIDER AND REPORT ON H. R. 5080, INTRODUCED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ON JANUARY 9, 1924, BY THE HON. G. W. EDMONDS

The above committee met on Monday, March 10, 1924. There were present Messrs. G. B. Ogden, chairman; H. E. Reed, W. D. Winter, S. D. McComb, J. F. Johnston, and D. R. Englar, who was asked to attend as counsel to the committee.

After a full discussion of the bill the committee arrived at the following conclusions:

1. That the Edmonds bill is substantially identical with the draft international convention for the unification of certain rules relating to bills of lading, adopted at Brussels in October, 1922. The bill embodies a code of regulations for the carriage of goods by sea which are more equitable and afford greater promise of a permanent and satisfactory adjustment of the relations between shipowners and cargo owners than any legislation which has ever been seriously considered in this country. Furthermore, these rules, having been approved by an international conference and being now embodied in a bill recently introduced in the British Parliament, afford a unique opportunity for the attainment of uniformity in the laws of the principal maritime nations on this subject. The committee, therefore, recommends that the American Institute of Marine Underwriters support the Edmonds bill and endeavor to aid in its passage.

2. In certain particulars the committee feels that the bill can be improved upon. It may be noted that its criticisms relate either to the English translation of the original French draft of the Brussels convention, or to matter which does not appear in the convention; in other words it does not suggest

30421-251-10

any departure from the original international convention but, on the contrary, a closer adherence to its terms.

(a) The deviation clause in the original draft international convention (Art. IV, subdivision 4) reads as follows:

"4. Any deviation in saving or attempting to save life or property at sea or any reasonable deviation shall not be deemed to be an infringement or breach of this convention or of the contract of carriage, and the carrier shall not be liable for any loss or damage resulting therefrom."

The corresponding provision of the Edmonds bill reads as follows: "(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."

Under existing law the shipper and carrier are free to make any contract they choose with respect to deviation, and it is customary to insert in ocean bills of lading very broad liberties of deviation, which are, in form, wide enough to cover almost any conceivable departure from the usual route. These liberties have not infrequently been abused, to the prejudice of shippers and consignees. While the courts have usually construed such clauses strictly against the carrier, they have had no power to afford any relief to the shipper where the deviation fell clearly within the terms of the clause, no matter how unreasonable the clause or the deviation might be. The provision above quoted from the draft international convention was obviously designed to cure this situation, and to make the reasonableness of a deviation the test of its validity. Your committee believes that the provisions of the draft international convention on this point lays down a fair rule whch will afford additional protection to cargo interests.

Unfortunately, the corresponding clause above quoted from the Edmonds bill does away with the rule of reasonableness, and substitutes a provision that the carrier may make any deviation which is agreed upon between the carrier and the shipper at the time the cargo space is contracted for. Under this provision, if the freight contract contains the usual clause that it is subject to the terms of the bill of lading in use by the carrier at the time, the present very wide deviation clauses, if the bill of lading happens to contain them, will be automatically incorporated in the freight contract and will be legal under the Edmonds bill.

Your committee believes that the American Institute of Marine Underwriters should use its influence to have the language of the draft international convention substituted for the present language of the Edmonds bill on the subject of deviation.

(b) The Edmonds bill is limited in its application to foreign voyages; it does not even apply to voyages between the east and west coasts of the United States. Your committee believes that this limitation on the scope of the act is unfortunate. If, as it believes, the rules represent a distinct and desirable advance over existing law, there seems to be no reason why they should not be applied to coastwise voyages. Furthermore, many export shipments are carried on coastwise vessels to the port from which they are exported, and the exclusion of such coastwise voyages from the operation of the Edmonds bill will destroy, in a considerable measure, the uniformity which is one of the ends sought to be attained by the draft international convention.

Your committee, therefore, recommends that the association use its influence to have section 11 of the Edmonds bill modified so as to make the bill applicable to voyages between American ports as well as to voyages between such ports and foreign ports.

(c) Subdivision 6 of section 3 of the act has been criticized on the ground that the second paragraph of this subdivision is not a correct translation of the original French draft.

In its present form this paragraph reads as follows:

"The notice in writing will not be effective if the state of the goods has at the time of their receipt been agreed to be otherwise than as stated in the notice."

Your committee is informed that the bill which has been introduced in the British Parliament has been modified by substituting, for the language above quoted the following paragraph:

"The notice in writing need not be given if the state of the goods has at the time of their receipt been the subject of a joint survey or inspection."

Your committee is informed and believes that the language last above quoted is a more accurate translation of the original French draft, and it recommends that an effort be made to have the Edmonds bill modified accordingly.

In recommending that the institute endeavor to have the foregoing changes made in the bill, however, your committee desires to make it clear that if the bill can not be amended, it believes that the institute should support the passage of the bill in its present form.

3. Your committee recommends that it be continued, or a new committee appointed, with instructions to represent the institute at any hearings which may be held on the Edmonds bill, and to take such other steps as may be appropriate to support the passage of the bill. For this purpose the committee should be empowered to employ counsel and to cooperate with other trade organizations which are, or may be interested in the passage of the bill. Respectfully submitted.

APRIL 29, 1924.

GEO. B. OGDEN.

S. D. McCOMB.
WILLIAM D. WINTER.

H. E. REED.

J. F. JOHNSTON.

(The committee thereupon adjourned until to-morrow, January 29, 1925, at 10.30 o'clock, a. m.)

COMMITTEE ON THE MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D. C., January 29, 1925.

The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m., Hon. George W. Edmonds (acting chairman) presiding.

Mr. EDMONDS. Yesterday there was some question raised in the committee as to the powers of the British Board of Trade. This matter was taken up by Doctor Huebner, when he was with the Shipping Board, at my request, and Mr. Haight. Mr. Haight wrote to London and got a letter back from Mr. Hipwood, who is the secretary, I think, of the mercantile marine department of the British Board of Trade, 3 Sanctuary Buildings, Great Smith Street, London, England. I will put the whole letter in the hearing, but I would just like to call the committee's attention to this one thing: * * * It gives power by order in council to fix the date at which the act comes into operation, but once we have issued the order in council fixing the date, our power is gone, and the only thing that could suspend or alter the act would be a fresh act of Parliament.

There are certain discretionary powers given to the board which are explained in here, in regard to load-line legislation, and so on; but, outside of that, where these general rules are passed, as stated in his letter, when they have once set a date for them to go into operation, they can not change anything without an act of Parliament. So, if there is no objection, I will put the whole letter in the record. There has been quite a question in this committee from time to time as to the powers of the British Board of Trade, anyhow, and I think it would be of interest to put that in. (The letter referred to is as follows:)

MERCANTILE MARINE DEPARTMENT, BOARD OF TRADE,
London, May 15, 1923.

DEAR MR. HAIGHT: I confirm what I said to you this morning about our carriage of goods by sea bill, and the subclause at the end of the bill itself dealing with the date on which it comes into operation.

That subclause, subclause 3 of clause 4, is as follows:

"The rules shall not by virtue of this act apply to any contract for the carriage of goods by sea made before such day, not being earlier than the thirtieth day of September, nineteen hundred and twenty-three, as His Majesty may by order in council direct."

We do not know exactly when the bill will get through, and the object of the subclause is to give sufficient time to the interests concerned to enable them to arrange their contracts and other business so as to comply with the act. It gives power by order in council to fix the date at which the act comes into operation, but once we have issued the order in council fixing the date, our power is gone, and the only thing that could suspend or alter the act would be a fresh act of Parliament.

Power is occasionally given to the executive to suspend the operation of an act, but it is in my experience a rare thing. We have one instance of it in the merchant shipping (convention) act, 1914, which contained as a schedule the International Convention on Safety of Life at Sea. This international convention was signed in London on the 20th of January, 1914, and the act received royal assent on the 10th of August, 1914. Section 29 (5) of the act is as follows:

"This act shall come into operation on the first day of July, nineteen hundred and fifteen: Provided, That His Majesty may by order in council from time to time postpone the coming into operation of this act for such period not exceeding on any occasion of postponement one year as may be specified in the order."

Under that power, we have postponed from time to time the operation of the convention act. It is the only case of the kind I have come across, and the power is one of postponement, not alteration. The postponement has, of course, been due to the war.

1

Our Parliament does not readily give the Government power to alter laws, and it is a most difficult and undesirable power for any Government department to possess. When our merchant shipping act of 1906 was going through Parliament, it was proposed to give a dispensing power to the board of trade but the board of trade at the time pressed very strongly that this power, if given, should be tied up very tightly. I inclose a copy of a section, section 78 of the merchants shipping act, 1906, and you will see that the tying up has been pretty well done. We can exempt a ship from a specified requirement if we are satisfied that that requirement has been substantially complied with in the case of that ship, or that compliance with the requirement is unnecessary in the circumstances of the case, and that the action taken or provision made as respects the subject matter of the requirement is as effective as, or more effective than, actual compliance with the requiremnt. We are also bound to report each year to Parliament every single case in which the power is exercised.

The one important point I should say in which the Government on this side has more liberty than the Government on your side is in the framing of rules on specific subjects under specific statutory powers. With us, for instance, the collision regulations are made by order in council on the joint recommendation of the Admiralty and the board of trade. (Sec. 418 of the merchant shipping act, 1894.) If it were agreed with foreign countries than an alteration should be made in the international regulations for preventing collisions at sea, the instrument in this country by which this would be done would be an order in council under that section, and it would not require a special act.

Take load line. Section 443 of the merchant shipping act, 1894, gives the board of trade power, after consulting the classification societies, to make regulations on the subject of load line, and those regulations while in force have effect as if enacted in the act.

Another instance is life-saving appliances. Under section 427 of the merchant shipping act, 1894, the board of trade have power to make regulations as to the life-saving appliances to be carried by ships. These rules have to be laid before Parliament and do not come into operation until they have lain for 40 days before both Houses of Parliament during the session of Parliament, and when they come into operation they have effect as if enacted in the act.

Other instances could be given, but these are probably sufficient to illustrate the point as to the power given to Government departments over here to make regulations on certain specified subjects.