In any event the carrier and the ship shall be discharged from all liability in respect of loss or damage unless suit is brought within one year after the delivery of the goods or the date when the goods should have been delivered. In the case of any actual or apprehended loss or damage the carrier and the receiver shall give all reasonable facilities to each other for inspecting and tallying the goods.

7. After the goods are loaded the bill of lading to be issued by the carrier. master or agent of the carrier, to the shipper shall, if the shipper so demands, be a "shipped" bill of lading, provided that if the shipper shall have previously taken up any document of the title to such goods, he shall surrender the same as against the issue of the "shipped "bill of lading, but at the option of the carrier such document of title may be noted at the port of shipment by the carrier, master, or agent with the name or names of the ship or ships upon which the goods have been shipped and the date or dates of shipment, and when so noted the same shall for the purpose of this article be deemed to constitute a shipped" bill of lading.

66

ARTICLE IV.-RIGHTS AND IMMUNITIES

1. Neither the carrier nor the ship shall be liable for loss or damage arising or resulting from unseaworthiness unless caused by want of due diligence on the part of the carrier to make the ship seaworthy, and to secure that the ship is properly manned, equipped and supplied, and to make the holds, refrigerating and cool chambers and all other parts of the ship in which goods are carried, fit and safe for their reception, carriage and preservation in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 of Article III.

Whenever loss or damage has resulted from unseaworthiness, the burden of proving the exercise of due diligence shall be on the carrier or other person claiming exemption under this section.

2. Neither the carrier nor the ship shall be responsible for loss or damage arising or resulting from

(a) Act, neglect, or default of the master, mariner, pilot, or the servants of the carrier in the navigation or in the management of the ship;

(b) Fire, unless caused by the actual fault or privity of the carrier;

(c) Perils, dangers, and accidents of the sea or other navigable waters;

(d) Act of God;

(e) Act of war:

(f) Act of public enemies;

(g) Arrest or restraint of princes, rules or people, or seizure under legal process;

(h) Quarantine restrictions;

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

(j) Strikes or lock-outs or stoppage or restraint of labour 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 voice o 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 wtihout the act, fault or neglect of the shipper, his agents of his servants.

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 infringent or breach of these Rules 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 exceed

ing £100 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.

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 bill of lading.3

6. 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 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.

4

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.

ARTICLE V.-SURRENDER OF RIGHTS AND IMMUNITIES, AND INCREASE OF RESPONSIBILITIES AND LIABILITIES

A carrier shall be at liberty to surrender in whole or in part all or any of his rights and immunities or to increase any of his responsibilities and liabilities under the Rules contained in any of these Articles, provided such surrender or increase shall be embodied in the bill of lading issued to the shipper.

The provisions of these Rules shall not be applicable to charter parties, but if bills of lading are issued in the case of a ship under a charterparty they shall comply with the terms of these Rules. Nothing in these Rules shall be held to prevent the insertion in a bill of lading of any lawful provision regarding general average.

ARTICLE VI.-SPECIAL CONDITIONS

Notwithstanding the provision of the preceding Articles, 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 seaworthness, 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 in this case no bill of lading has been or shall be issued and that the terms agreed shall be empodied 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 Article shall not apply to ordinary commercial shipments made in the ordinary 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.

ARTICLE VII.-LIMITATIONS ON THE APPLICATION OF THE RULES

Nothing herein contained shall prevent a carrier or a shipper from entering into any agreement, stipulation, condition, reservation, or exemption as to the responsibility and liability of the carrier or the ship for the loss or damage to or in connection with the custody and care and handling of goods prior to the

3 The final clause of paragraph 5 appears in the subcommittee text as paragraph 6. Paragraph 6 in the act corresponds to paragraph 7 of that text.

loading on and subsequent to the discharge from the ship on which the goods are carried by sea.

ARTICLE VIII.-LIMITATION OF LIABILITY

The provisions of these rules shall not affect the rights and obligations of the carrier under any statute for the time being in force relating to the limitation of the liability of owners of seagoing vessels.

ARTICLE IX

The monetary units mentioned in these Rules are to be taken to be gold value.

CONFERENCES IN LONDON AND BRUSSELS, OCTOBER, 1922

Upon the invitation of the Belgian Government the President of the United States appointed two delegates, Norman Beecher, counsel of the United States Shipping Board, and Judge Charles M. Hough, an authority on admiralty law, to attend the International Conference on Martime Law at Brussels, the sessions of which were held from October 17 to 26, 1922.

A report of the delegates of the United States was published as a document by the Government Printing Office, 1923. It contains the official list of delegates; a review of the proceedings in the meeting of the International Martime Committee, which was held in London October 9 to 11, 1922, and prepared certain amendments to The Hague Rules that were later discussed and generally adopted in the Brussels conference; and finally the draft of the international convention, which forms the basis of the new British carriage of goods by sea act, and of the Edmonds bill (H. R. 5080), introduced in the first session of the Sixty-eighth Congress.

The Brussels conference was organized on October 17 and resolved itself into two subcommittees, one of which considered the matters of shipowners' limitation of liability and regulation of ship mortgages and liens and the other the rules for the carriage of goods by sea as amended in London. The proceedings of the latter subcommittee appear in the report under Exhibit E. The report of the United States delegates had the following to say with regard the advisability of the adoption of The Hague Rules by the nations represented at the conference:

"We draw attention to Article III, 6, to which in its protocol shape Great Britain and Belgium finally agreed. While the language ultimately adopted is somewhat changed from that of the draft submitted to the London meeting, we think it represents a liberality to cargo owners not to be found in any heretofore used bill of lading.

66

We also especially note Article IV, 1, which is plainly intended to modify the rule of absolute warranty of initial seaworthiness insisted on by the Supreme Court of the United States after the passage of the Harter Act; and also Article IV, 4, which is intended to change the present legal rule in Englishspeaking countries that any deviation annuls the contract of carriage.

"It will also be noted that the rules are applicable only to that period of time while the goods are on board ship. With respect to the liabilities and obligations of the carrier, either before or after this period, the Harter Act and other applicable legislation, National or State, remain in full force.

"We regard the rules as finally formulated at Brussels a beneficial advance upon anything heretofore known in respect of bills of lading. The responsibilities of carriers are materially increased; they will be obliged to cover additional risk by additional insurance. Whether this diversion (in theory at least) of insurance from the cargo owner to the carrier will result in a corresponding increase in freight rates, or whether competition will keep freight rates down, is something that only experience can make certain.

"But such increase in carrier's responsibilities represents the united and insistent desire of shippers and cargo owners as well as of underwriters notwithstanding the fact that the same underwriters will continue to insure the same risks whether the same are assumed by carriers or cargo.

"In our judgment these rules are a response to the demand of American as well as other shippers; they are being insistently urged for legislative

4 In the subcommittee test there appear here the words "to the shipper," omitted in the act.

adoption, especially in Great Britain. We think that for business reasons the American shipowner will be wise to offer as good a bargain to the shipper as do his competitors.

"In conclusion, it is our opinion that the 'Rules for the carriage of goods by sea, is a thing finished; it lies with the maritime nations of the world to take it or leave it. We think it ought to be taken.

The report of the United States delegates does not contain the actual minutes of the meetings and the very interesting discussions which took place. These were published in French at Brussels in 1923, and they do not appear as yet to have been translated into English. In addition to the minutes of the conference (Procès Verbaux) there have been published in French memoranda, observations, and subcommittee reports outlining the attitude of the delegates of the German, Dutch, Japanese, and several other Governments, relating both to the question of liability of cargo carriers and the question of mortgages and liens.

These documents, transmitted to the bureau by Commercial Attaché S. H. Cross, are in the files of the division of commercial laws and consists of the following items:

GENERAL

1. Protocol of the conference as finally signed October 26.

2. Texts adopted by the subcommission (March-April, 1913), containing proposals for a convention on responsibility of owners of seagoing ships and on rules governing mortgages and maritime liens.

3. Reports of the subcommission designated to examine text of Hague Rules as modified at London, October 9-11, 1922.

4. English text of same report.

5. Project of convention on maritime liens and mortgages as prepared at Brussels by a subcommission to be submitted to the conference.

6. English text of Hague Rules as amended at London, October 9-11, 1922 (text finally adopted is contained, as in the case of other convention projects, in the final protocol). Accompanied by French text of same.

7. Resolutions on the exemption of state-owned ships adopted at London by the International Maritime Committee.

OBSERVATIONS OF VARIOUS GOVERNMENTS

8. Japanese Government on shipowners' responsibility.

9. Japanese Government on maritime liens and mortgages.

10. Dutch Government on shipowners' responsibility and on maritime liens and mortgages.

11. Remarks of Doctor Loder (Dutch delegation) on liens and mortgages. 12. German Government on shipowners' responsibility and on maritime liens and mortgages.

13. British Government on the same.

14. Scandinavian Governments.

15. Report of M. Lyon Caen (French delegate).

INTERNATIONAL MARITIME CONFERENCE, BRUSSELS, 1922

[Report of Commercial Attaché S. H. Cross]

GENERAL ACTIVITY

This conference, at which 24 countries were represented, considered the two projects, drawn up by its subcommission in the spring of 1913, namely, (a) the unification of certain rules concerning the limitation of responsibility of owners of seagoing vessels, and (b) the unification of certain rules relative to mortgages and maritime liens. It also extended its deliberations to the so-called Hague Rules as modified by the last conference of the International Maritime Committee at London, October 9 to 11, 1922.

PROCEDURE

After an introductory address by M. Jasper, Belgian Minister of Foreign Affairs, the conference at its opening session on October 17 chose M. Louis Franck, the Belgian Minister of Colonies, as presiding officer. It then pro

ceeded immediately to the examination of the two projects and The Hague Rules. After examination in plenary session, each project was turned over to a selected subcommittee for redrafting according to the emendations developed in open discussion. The amended drafts were then referred back to plenary sessions and with slight emendations included in the protocol. The protocol simply recommends that the three projects included shall be taken by the participating Governments as a basis for conventions to be later drawn up. No one is thus formally committed by these results of the conference. At its close, the American delegates were desirous of having a formal pronouncement in favor of a convention based on the London resolutions regarding the immunity of state-owned ships. While the majority of the delegates appeared in accord with these resolutions, it was felt that as most of them were uninstructed, it would be advisable to ask the Belgian Government to invite the other States concerned to request a permanent subcommittee deriving from the present conference to draft a project along the lines laid down in the London resolutions referred to.

LIMITATION OF RESPONSIBILITY OF OWNERS

Apart from the British objection to any limitation on the liability in respect to damage occasioned to ports, docks, and navigable ways, no important divergencies of opinion were noted until the discussion of article 4 relative to the value of the freight specified in article 1. The text of the former article was unanimously disapproved. The British delegation advocated a fixed sum of 30 shillings per ton for freight and accessories. The French desired a lump sum for freight without accessories, while the Scandinavians proposed a percentage of the value of the ship. A compromise between the last two proposals, namely, either a fixed sum, or 10 per cent of the value of the ship at the beginning of the voyage, was finally adopted. The definition of voyage originally included was dropped. The additional responsibility for bodily injuries was raised, at the English suggestion, to £8 per gauge ton. Mr. Beecher of the American delegation objected to this limitation on the ground that it favors the owner at the expense of the shipper and the rights of the cargo are thus impaired. To this objection the chair replied that Belgian legislation had admitted this system for over a decade, and that with the 10 per cent provision in article 4 the cargo actually is more favored than under the prevailing usage. The American objection was not pressed. The British delegates demanded a vote on the inclusion of the note to article 7 applying a lower limit of liability to nonpassenger ships of less than 300 tons, and were overruled by a large majority, only the United States and the Netherlands voting against the maintenance of this reserve. At the suggestion of the Dutch delegation, the sterling values of the convention were defined as gold, while the conference, apart from authorizing the conversion from sterling to national currencies in round numbers, also accepted the German suggestion that national legislation should authorize conversion at the rates prevailing at the dates fixed by article 3, The British substituted for article 19 of the original draft article 18 of the protocol defining the position of dominions of dependencies of signatory powers with regard to these conventions.

The project, as eventually included in the protocol appears, to present no fundamental difficulty in relation to the act of June 26, 1884 (though the limitation to £8 per ton of gauge under article 1 would be something of a departure in American practice, and some reserves are probably necessary under the Harter act).

MORTGAGES AND LIENS

Owing to the peculiar provisions of the merchant marine act of 1920 (sec. 30) establishing preferred mortgages, the clauses of article 2 regarding the rank of maritime liens were of particular interest to the American delegation. Judge Hough of the American delegation here remarked that it is the apparent intention of the project to limit the number of maritime liens within bounds to be established, but that as far as America is concerned, any such lessening of maritime liens would be an impossibility. The intention to set up ordinary mortgages as a privileged claim would thus hardly be acceptable. On the other hand, declared Judge Hough, if some restriction of liens were made in favor of holders of preferred mortgages, such a step would be of considerable interest. As a result, article 3 was inserted