Mr. BRIGGS. So that there will not be any misunderstanding about it, I want the act analyzed.

Mr. SLOAN. You have expressed it clearly.

Mr. ABERNETHY. As compared with existing law, not only in the Harter Act but in the law that prevails.

Mr. BRIGGS. In respect to section 1, and so forth.

Mr. BRAND. Under this White bill, if a shipowner was not satisfied with this provision, and he would get out a printed bill of lading that stated his ideas and the shipper would come in and sign that bill of lading, would that be a contract between them that would be effective in circumventing and avoiding the White bill?

Mr. DRAPER. I think it would, and he would be prevented from giving it to one shipper unless he gave it to all shippers.

Mr. BRAND. Then we are not making this bill effective at all.

Mr. DRAPER. Yes; I think you would be because no shipper is going to sign away anything that he has got.

Mr. BRAND. Maybe he would avoid a lot of things required by law.

Mr. DRAPER. Shipper or shipowners?

Mr. BRAND. The carriers might avoid a lot of these things.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Can that be done with a common carrier now? Are they not bound by the bill of lading?

Mr. BEEK. Absolutely.

Mr. ABERNETHY. They can not change a uniform bill of lading. Mr. BEEK. May I answer?

Mr. ABERNETHY. Yes.

Mr. BEEK. Under the law the Interstate Commerce Commission prescribes the form of the bill of lading that is used by the railroad and it can not be departed from.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Why is it not desirable in this instance.

Mr. BEEK. The first thing is I do not think it is humanly possible to make it so because the conditions are so entirely different. I can go and charter a tramp boat and do anything I like with it and you can go the next week and charter the same boat and do the same thing, but I can not do that with the railroads.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Why should you be permitted to do it?

Mr. BEEK. I do not think there is any legislation could reach it. Mr. DRAPER. You might have a competitive condition on the other side of the world.

Mr. BEEK. The conditions are so entirely different that I do not think it is possible to do it.

Mr. ABERNETHY. The sooner we get out of that mental attitude in this country of ours that we have to follow other countries, the better.

Mr. BEEK. I do not think that.

Mr. ABERNETHY. We are undertaking to build up a merchant marine and have made a forward step in doing great things for shipping people, shipyards, and now we want to help the shippers, too, without any undue hazards on the shipowners. Everybody understands that. Nobody wants to hurt anybody, but when you gentlemen who represent these great shipping interests come here, I for one member of the committee feel that you should come here and write a bill of your own instead of taking one that is written by some conference abroad on something that you were not in on, sit down

and start with section 1 and write a bill of lading that you think will protect shippers and then let the underwriters try their hand and the shipowners try their hand, put them all in the hopper and work out something from all those things, instead of this proposition that is prepared abroad, and you are getting very few of the benfits that would come from it. It may be because you think you can not get any more, but if you feel that way about it you misjudge the temper of this committee, I think.

Mr. BEEK. We have been so busy fighting this thing in the last 10 years that we have not had time to devote ourselves to drafting a bill.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Unless there are some radical changes I will devote 10 years of my time to it.

Mr. BRAND. It seems to me he is not bound by it.

Mr. BRIGGS. Here is the point raised by your question, Mr. Brand, that while you are permitted under this bill to make any agreement that you want, that bill of lading is not a negotiable instrument, whereas those that conform to this law are negotiable instruments. That is the chief thing.

Mr. DRAPER. With respect to that condition, there is one point of difference between the Harter Act and this proposed legislation, which by reason of this law, and The Hague rules themselves, would show itself, according to some authorities, and this is why I say we are in a little doubt that the Harter Act would be so modified as to permit the carrier to exempt themselves for liability for proper care, loading, and delivery of freight. That is in The Hague rules themselves. The addition in title 2 where it refers to the Harter Act in this bill would take care of the loading and delivery, but it would not cover the proper care while in the custody except in so far as it is covered by the bill. Furthermore, the Harter Act specifically makes it unlawful for the carriers to exempt themselves for liability for loss or damage resulting from negligence, faulty, or failure in proper loading, stowage, custody, care, or proper delivery. Article 3 of The Hague rules, which is incorporated into this bill, requires the carrier before and at the beginning of the voyage to exercise due diligence, and I direct particular attention to that, to make the ship seaworthy, properly manned, equipped, and supplied, "and shall properly and carefully load, handle, stow, carry, keep, care for, and discharge the goods carried."

The Harter Act makes the carrier responsible for damage arising from negligence or fault or failure. In the treaty and in this bill, in the proposed treaty and in this bill, which is based upon the convention, the carrier would be merely required to exercise due diligence to do those things, and we agree that that is a different matter. the owner is responsible he is required to exercise it.

If

Mr. ABERNETHY. If I read your testimony in 1925 correctly, you and Mr. Campbell both were opposing the proposition here about that modification of the Harter Act by using due diligence to make the vessel seaworthy. With your agreement with Mr. Haight you just overlooked that and forget that because of getting something else.

Mr. DRAPER. We overlooked some other things in this bill.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Why overlook it? Without respect to any agreement you made with Mr. Haight, I want you to be prepared the next time you come here for a hearing to sit down and give me in writing how you would like to have the bill, without any reference to any agreement you made with Mr. Haight.

Mr. DRAPER. I will be glad to do that.

(Thereupon, at 12.30 o'clock p. m., the committee adjourned to meet again at 10.30 o'clock a. m., Monday, March 10, 1930.)

RELATING TO THE CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA

MONDAY, MARCH 10, 1930

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON THE MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES,

Washington, D. C.

The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m., Hon. Charles H. Sloan presiding.

Mr. SLOAN. Judge Davis, you wanted to interrogate Mr. Myrick relative to the chamber of commerce, as I understand?

Mr. DAVIS. Yes.

Mr. SLOAN. And Mr. Myrick wants to get away.

Mr. DAVIS. I just indicated that, before the hearings were closed,

I wanted to ask a few questions.

Mr. SLOAN. Are you ready to interrogate him now?

Mr. DAVIS. Yes; it suits me all right.

STATEMENT OF N. SUMNER MYRICK, CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES

Mr. DAVIS. Give your full name to the stenographer.

Mr. MYRICK. N. Sumner Myrick, Chamber of Commerce of the United States.

Mr. DAVIS. It was announced here, I think the first day of the hearings, that this bill had the indorsement of the United States Chamber of Commerce; was that correct?

Mr. MYRICK. Well, I do not know that I am at liberty to say the chamber of commerce has indorsed this particular bill. The chamber of commerce has, on four different occasions, at annual meetings, passed resolutions indorsing and approving The Hague rules, and the executives would be in favor of this bill. I had something to do with the drafting of the bill. It was at my suggestion, I think, that the conference was held at the Shipping Board, in which Mr. Nicolson, Mr. Boal, the admiralty counsel of the Shipping Board; Mr. Haight, and Mr. Titus, of the Department of Commerce, and I sat in as an observer, so to speak, and this bill was prepared at that conference. So that the executives of the chamber have been more or less in touch with the bill ever since it was introduced.

Mr. DAVIS. Now what is your connection with the United States Chamber of Commerce?

Mr. MYRICK. I have charge of shipping matters and have had for about 12 years.

Mr. DAVIS. You devote all of your time to that?

Mr. MYRICK. Yes.

Mr. DAVIS. You are on a salary from the United States Chamber of Commerce?

Mr. MYRICK. Yes.

Mr. DAVIS. Have you any other business interests or connections? Mr. MYRICK. No.