As far as my experience goes, the power is given where the Government Department has some definite duty of administering or regulating, and no one here would ever think of giving it in a case like that of the carriage of goods by sea bill. In any case it is certainly not given by that bill and when once the bill comes into operation it is unalterable except by another act. Yours faithfully, CHARLES S. HAIGHT, Esq. C. HIPWOOD. MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1908 78. (1) The board of trade may, if they think fit, and upon such conditions (if any) as they think fit to impose, exempt any ship from any specified requirement contained in, or prescribed in pursuance of; the merchant shipping acts, or dispense with the observance of any such requirement in the case of any ship, if they 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 in the case of the ship is as effective as, or more effective than, actual compliance with the requirement. (2) The board of trade shall annually lay before both Houses of Parliament a special report stating the cases in which they have exercised their powers under this section during the preceding year, and the grounds upon which they have acted in each case. Mr. EDMONDS (continuing). Now, when we closed the hearing last night, I think Mr. Draper had the floor. Mr. BLAND. Did we effect a reconciliation with Mr. Campbell last night? Mr. EDMONDS. We talked; I talked with Mr. Campbell and I spent quite a little time with Mr. Draper afterwards, and they spent quite a little time afterwards on the telephone. Mr. HAIGHT. Mr. Edmonds and I worked for two hours and, so far as I am concerned, I have agreed in respect to a clause which Mr. Campbell says will suit him on the subject of deviation, under which it is provided that nothing in the rules should be construed as prohibiting any carrier from issuing a bill of lading to stop at any number of named ports he likes. Our purpose in doing that was, if he names the ports, the shipper will then know what kind of a voyage the goods are going upon and, if he is willing to accept that voyage, of course, there is no reason why he should not. The proposed clause is as follows: At the end of subsection 4, page 8, using the regular deviation clause suggested by the Shipping Board yesterday, add thereto the following: * * * Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to prohibit the carrier from entering into a contract specifically allowing the ship to call at any number of named ports in any reasonable order, to load or discharge for the pending or return voyage. Mr. Campbell says, if that provision can be inserted, he waives all further objections to the deviation clause, and I understand Mr. Draper says that that is not entirely an unreasonable provision. Mr. DRAPER. Only as far as Mr. Campbell is concerned; but it does not meet our objections that we want to overcome. Mr. HAIGHT. No. Mr. DRAPER. The objections to deviations by steamship companies that we know nothing about in advance. Mr. HAIGHT. Yes; this will provide that the bill of lading must specify the ports and name them. Mr. WHITE. Now, right in that connection, I do not understand, as you first read it, it provided that the bill of lading must specify the ports at which the vessel was to call. Mr. HAIGHT. Yes. Mr. WHITE. As I understood you, the bill of lading might enumerate the specific ports at which the vessel might call. Mr. HAIGHT. No; let me read it: * Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to prohibit the carrier from entering into a contract specifically allowing the ship to call at any number of named ports in any reasonable order. And so forth. They must be named. Mr. WHITE. Yes; but, as I get that, it does not add anything to the import of the shipping boards amendment. Mr. HAIGHT. I can not say that it does. Mr. BLAND. But it removes the doubt that existed in Mr. Campbell's mind. I quite agree with you. Mr. WHITE. It might remove something that is outside of the record, but I do not think it changes the shipping board's amendment in its significance, as I read it. Mr. BLAND. It makes clear their interpretation, as I see it. Mr. NICOLSON. That was our contention yesterday, that under the amendment as proposed it would be possible to go from one port to another, and also, if the bill said "also intermediate ports," it would be permissible. Mr. BLAND. But this reads without that. Mr. HAIGHT. It satisfies Mr. Campbell you were right in your construction. I think you were right, anyhow. Mr. SCOTT. This is a change to this extent, gentlemen, and it ought not to be overlooked; it allows the ship owner to designate, in his bill of lading, the method of conducting his voyage. Under your interpretation, he would have to stop at the ports in geographical order. Mr. BLAND. Not necessarily. Mr. WHITE. Not necessarily. Mr. NICOLSON. Not under the phraseology of our form. It is quite possible the court would hold, under our form, that he might have to go in the geographical order, but not from the phraseology of the provision itself. Mr. WHITE. But under the phraseology of your amendment he had the liberty of contract to designate any ports he saw fit. Mr. NICOLSON. Undoubtedly. At least, we did not intend to restrain him in that respect. Mr. EDMONDS. I think the doubt in Mr. Campbell's mind was more a question of loading freight. In other words, say you are going to stop at three or four ports, and you go to each port and stop. and you not only unload freight, but you load freight. He seemed to think it possible the court might consider the delay to load freight, before you continued on your voyage to the terminus, would be considered as a delay, as against the shipowner, and he wants these ships that do this trading placed in a position so that they can go to a port and unload and load-unload cargo on the outward voyage and load cargo for the return voyage-and then turn around and come back again. And I think that is valuable for your services, too, Mr. Nicolson, if there is any doubt that there would be a legal interpretation put on it to prevent that; because otherwise you might not be able to pick up 500 tons of cargo homeward bound at the port on your outward voyage, but, under Mr. Campbell's idea, it would necessitate coming back again and stopping again on your in voyage. And you know the high cost of going into these ports would simply mean a double cost and a very foolish expenditure of money. If there is any doubt on this at all I think this conforms to the idea we had on it yesterday; if there is no doubt it does not hurt anything, and, if there is a doubt, it fixes it. Now Mr. Draper has the floor. STATEMENT OF MR. NORMAN DRAPER-Resumed Mr. DRAPER. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, we do not see that this suggested change would overcome the objection of the shippers. Mr. Scort. I do not want to interrupt you again, Mr. Draper, but I have sat on this committee for a good many years and I feel that I know what the committee is anxious to get. I wish you would explain in detail how the provisions of section 4 put you in a worse position than you are now in, and, if it does not help you, why it does not help you. Do you get my question? Mr. DRAPER. That would not put us in any worse position than we are now. Mr. Scorт. All right. Mr. DRAPER. However, we think the time has arrived, inasmuch as these bills of lading are being revised in the interest of the shipowners, that the time has arrived when the shipper should also have some consideration given to his point of view, and he deserves to be protected. We do not think, without this clause as it is used in the Edmonds bill, that the shipowner will have any more protection under this bill, as regards deviation, than he had before; and it is a very bad situation, we feel. Mr. SCOTT. Well, do you think that the provision in the original Edmonds bill would meet your situation? Mr. DRAPER. Absolutely. Mr. SCOTT. Then do you not think that the additional provision which is made by this amendment virtually suspends the language, "or any deviation agreed upon between the carrier and the shipper at the time cargo space is contracted for?" Mr. DRAPER. No. Mr. Scort. Do you not think this subsequent amendment would suspend that? Mr. DRAPER. No, sir. Mr. WHITE. That is not what his objection goes to directly. Mr. DRAPER. No; our objection was not that we would not be able to make a contract. That was Mr. Campbell's objection, and I agreed with him that his position was absolutely right, as he looked at it; but there is another matter involved in addition to the right to make a contract. The thing we are interested in is having some assurance in this law, that, when we book space on a vessel, and her announced or advertised itinerary is available to us-we want to know when we put freight on that vessel, that the vessel is going where the itinerary said it was going, and we feel that this language in here would have that result. I am not a lawyer, but we have available to us very excellent legal talent, we feel, and all of those lawyers have looked over this language and have agreed this language would accomplish the result that we seek. You see, what we have now is just freight contracts. You can get a freight contract and it can have on there anything in the world, and it can state that the vessel is going to sail direct to the moon, so far as that is concerned, and that is about all it means; it is a mere scrap of paper; it does not amount to anything; it has no connection whatsoever with the ocean bill of lading, when issued, and you can go into the courts and fight for years, and you won't get any place with the freight contract. Now, with this language we feel it would tie up the freight contract with the ocean bill of lading, when issued, so that anything that is in the ocean bill of lading, contrary to this provision in here, anything beyond that, would be illegal and the freight contract would become a part of the ocean bill of lading and the ocean bill of lading would become a part of the freight contract. Then, if anything happened on account of the deviation from the announced or scheduled itinerary, we have somebody to hold and we can go back to the freight contract and prove the vessel was supposed to go in a certain route, and did not go. Mr. WHITE. As I understand you, you want it fixed so that in the absence of specific contract designating the particular ports at which your vessel may stop, she must proceed from the port of departure to the port where the goods are consigned, without deviation, except such as may be necessary in order to save life or property, or something of that sort? Mr. DRAPER. Surely. Mr. WHITE. That is about what you want. Mr. DRAPER. That is all we want. In other words, our feeling is this: You can compare it with a railroad. We feel when we ship a train load of stuff from St. Louis to New York, that that train load of stuff should go from St. Louis to New York direct, and by the shortest possible route. If, on the other hand, that train load of stuff went down to New Orleans and then to New York, we would consider we had a justifiable complaint. Now that is just the situation we are complaining about on the ocean. Most of our stuff, or a large part of our stuff, a large portion of our perishable stuff, goes on fast liners. Those liners leave and arrive just like express trains. They are under the continuous control of their owners and there is no more reason why they should go sailing around, and if they intend to go and announce to go, and it even says so in the freight contract that they are going direct from New York to HamburgThere is no reason why they should stop off at Plymouth four or five days. Mr. SCOTT. Let me get your attention here for four or five min utes, if you will indulge me, Mr. White. Mr. WHITE. Go ahead. Mr. Scort. If I may revert to the very inception of our discussion, I want clearly to understand you. Do I understand you to say that the provisions of section 4, as originally drawn, were moderately satisfactory to you? Mr. DRAPER. They are absolutely satisfactory to me. Mr. Scort. That is better than my suggestion, sir. Now, if you will read the second line after the comma, it says, " or any deviation agreed upon between the carrier and the shipper at the time the cargo space is contracted for." Now that agreement, from which there can be a deviation or may be a deviation, is your bill of lading, is it not? Mr. DRAPER. Oh, no. Mr. SCOTT. Well, what is it-your contract of shipment? Mr. Scort. Well, the freight contract. I said, "Your bill of lading"; I meant your freight contract. Now, if your bill of lading says that that ship is to leave New York on the way to Constantinople and mentions no intervening ports, you insist that the ship should go directly from New York to Constantinople? Mr. DRAPER. Oh, no. If it says from New York to Constantinople, in or out of any ports on the route, that is all right. We just want that stated in the contract. Mr. Scort. All right; you are putting language in the contract which I did not put in. I say if your contract of shipment provides your shipment is going from New York to Constantinople, or New York to London, or New York to any other port, you insist that it shall be carried out exactly as the contract provides. Mr. DRAPER. Yes; but they do not usually read that way; they read "New York to London direct." Mr. SCOTT. Then it is a contract that you make with the carrier? Mr. DRAPER. The booking agent. Mr. Scort. Now, sir, under the new language it provides that any deviation shall be enumerated in the contract. In other words, it says the contract of shipment Mr. BLAND. That woud not be a deviation. Mr. SCOTT. It says that the ship may only stop at named ports. Mr. DRAPER. Provided there is nothing in there-I have not the language before me, but it says nothing in this section here shall prevent the carrier from making a contract. Is not that the way it reads? Mr. SCOTT. Yes; that is the situation now and would be the situation if the suggested phraseology of section 4 were adopted. I can not see, for the life of me (and I will be glad to have anybody explain it) what difference it makes whether you leave in "or any deviation agreed upon between the carrier and the shipper at the time cargo space is contracted for," or not. I can not see what difference it makes whether you leave that in or if you take it out and put this in: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to bar the carrier for entering into a contract with the shipper specifically allowing the ship to call at any number of named ports. In other words, whether you leave section 4 as originally drawn or whether you carry this new amendment into it, the shipper at |