Mr. DAVIS. That is the point exactly. It is not merely the question of due diligence; but, for instance, he is required to provide a safe place for his employees to work; he is required to provide safe machinery, and all that sort of business.

Mr. HAIGHT. Right.

Mr. DAVIS. You are changing the law as interpreted by the Supreme Court.

Mr. HAIGHT. I am saying that in this particular, as in every other point, a man who has been careful, guilty of no negligence, is not to be condemned by any court. Now you have not ever had a case in

your life, sir, I will guarantee

Mr. DAVIS. You take the railroad: The railroad is not just simply required to use due diligence in the employment of servants and it is not merely required to employ due diligence in the procurement and the maintanance of its rolling stock, but it is liable for any defects in rolling stock.

Mr. HAIGHT. Not at all.

Mr. DAVIS. It is liable for any defects in rolling stock if it causes. an accident and is liable for the negligence of its agents.

Mr. HAIGHT. It is never responsible unless you find some carelessness somewhere. And what this means is that if an axle of the express train breaks and it is proven that it broke because of a concealed defect inside that could never be discovered, it is not a case of your fault.

Mr. DAVIS. Oh, well, the railroad is an absolute guarantor so far as the shipment of goods is concerned.

Mr. HAIGHT. I am not a railroad lawyer.

Mr. SLOAN. It is an insurer; but I do not think that is anything very closely related to this.

Mr. HAIGHT. I do not understand a railroad company is responsible for fire if lightning strikes a car.

Mr. SLOAN. But if he agrees to ship, his contract is to get the goods through.

Mr. HAIGHT. Would any lawyer here say he feels if lightning strikes the car that the transportation carrier is responsible?

Mr. DAVIS. Certainly not. I have said two or three times that the carrier is not liable for acts of God.

Mr. HAIGHT. All right. You have to show negligence.

Mr. DAVIS. But suppose there is damage due to negligence of the railroad servants.

Mr. HAIGHT. All right, they will have to pay for it; so will the steamship company.

Mr. DAVIS. It is not a question of their coming in and saying they used due diligence in employing that servant.

Mr. HAIGHT. No can the steamship company except in the one particular of error of navigation or error of management.

Mr. BRIGGS. I think everybody knows the existing law bristles with provisions-I do not mean the existing law applicable to this, but I mean the general law of master and servant imposes an absolute obligation upon the master, in many instances, from which he can not escape by showing he has exercised all due diligence.

Mr. HAIGHT. The master of the ship?

Mr. BRIGGS. I mean the master generally, the law of master and servant; and if somebody has to suffer by reason of the existence of

an inherent defect in something, it will have to be the master in this case, for the reason that is the obligation that the law imposes upon him in their relationships.

Mr. HAIGHT. I submit there is no case

Mr. BRIGGS. Now the Supreme Court of the United States has said that in this case there is the absolute obligation resting upon the steamship company that its ship shall be seaworthy and they can not escape it by saying they exercised due diligence. Somebody has to suffer and it will have to be the steamship company in this case. You gentlemen will have to protect yourself in this case; I say "you gentlemen," I mean the advocates of the bill; the proponents of this bill are coming in and asking that that absolute obligation which the Supreme Court of the United States says is the law of the land, shall be abrogated and be made only a conditional obligation, conditioned upon their exercising due diligence. It seems to me that is a tremendous reduction in the safeguards which the shippers have under the existing law.

Mr. HAIGHT. If we take the Federal Reporter, both series, and go through it, you will find, I suppose, a one-sixteenth part of one per cent or less of cases where inevitable accident has played any part. Now inevitable accident cases are the rarest birds that you could hunt for.

Mr. BRIGGS. What is the use, then, of putting this provision in this bill, if it does not amount to anything?

Mr. HAIGHT. I will tell you why. When the four interests went back, the steamship owners, the shippers, the bankers, and the underwriters——

Mr. ABERNETHY. Who represented the shippers in those four when they started out on this work?

Mr. HAIGHT. The most active proponent for the shipping interests was Leopold Dor.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Who is he?

Mr. HAIGHT. He is a French lawyer.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Name some American. Let us get away from France, because she has no stable government at this time.

Mr. HAIGHT. I am sorry, sir; but almost always it happens, when an international job is to be done, America is never there until it is all over, and then they begin to criticize what is done. You say there was not anybody representing the interests of the shippers at The Hague. That was because they could not be persuaded to go.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Why does that have any binding effect upon us? Mr. HAIGHT. It does not; you are perfectly free; if American does not want international uniformity, you can kill it.

Mr. ABERNETHY. We are having trouble right now; we have sent our delegates over to England, and France, in the meantime, had a blow-up, and now they are sitting over there waiting until they get stabilized again. And Mussolini says he is not going into it until we act, so there we are. Let us get back to home consumption.

Mr. FREE. Yes, let us come back to home consumption; let us have something to eat. [Laughter.]

Mr. SLOAN. I understand, Mr. Haight, that in a way you represent those four interest in this controversy

Mr. HAIGHT. No, sir.

Mr. SLOAN. Which ultimately resulted in this general arrangement?

I came

Mr. HAIGHT. I did not represent anybody at the outset. in later, at the request of the International Chamber of Commerce, and since then I have been spokesman for all of them, in a sense.

Mr. SLOAN. I have been very much interested in the points. developed and I see a great many advantages in this bill. Now, there are some disadvantages suggested in it. I do not know what my attitude will be and do not care to say and would not say

Mr. HAIGHT. Of course not.

Mr. SLOAN. But you are going away for two or three weeks and you will be catechized by Mr. Abernethy, an able lawyer, and I would like to have you prepared from the four angles to state what controversies there were, what advantages there were, and what disadvantages there were in the old system, first, to the shippers; second, or in whatever order you place them-I regard the shippers as the most important-be prepared, if you can and will, to give us, we might say, the bookkeeping advantages to each of the four and the concessions made by each of the four, so that we may have a complete understanding of it. Because, you having in a way represented the four, probably you can tell what these advantages are, what the disadvantages were, what things of value have been waived, and what particular injuries may be suffered by any one of these four, and what benefits may arise will probably arise. And then, another thing, I would like to have you give an opinion, whether or not the adoption of this bill would promote a raising of ocean freight rates, or a reduction of the same. That, of course, would be an opinion of yours. Mr. HAIGHT. Right.

Mr. SLOAN. Now, you will be examined on those points. I may throw in a question or two myself, in the interval.

Mr. HAIGHT. It will give me an opportunity all the way home to have something to do.

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Reid wanted to know the case in which the Supreme Court of the United States interpreted the Harter Act upon the question of the seaworthiness of the vessel.

Mr. HAIGHT. Hart v. Pennsylvania, was it not; the old case of the race horse, where they held they could diminish their liability per package?

Mr. REID. Give me the citations.

Mr. HAIGHT. I do not carry the books and pages in my head. I can write them out for you.

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Haight, you stated that Great Britain had ratified The Hague Code upon this subject with one reservation. What was that reservation?

Mr. HAIGHT. When they signed the convention they made a trivial reservation. I have forgotten what it was. When they finally enacted the carriage of goods by sea act in 1924, they practically copied the rules word for word.

Mr. DAVIS. Now, have you a copy of the British act?

Mr. HAIGHT. Yes, sir.

Mr. DAVIS. Will you file that for insertion in the record?

Mr. HAIGHT. May I send a copy of the act, sir? I have it here

in a book form which I hate to leave.

Mr. DAVIS. You can just mail it to the chairman of the committee for inclusion in the record.

Mr. FREE. Send a copy to the clerk of the committee.

CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA ACT, 1924

An act to amend the law with respect to the carriage of goods by sea. Whereas at the international conference on maritime law held at Brussels in October, 1922, the delegates at the conference, including the delegates representing His Majesty, agreed unanimously to recommend their respective governments to adopt as the basis of a convention a draft convention for the unification of certain rules relating to bills of lading:

And whereas at a meeting held at Brussels in October, 1923, the rules contained in the said draft convention were amended by the committee appointed by the said conference:

And whereas it is expedient that the said rules as so amended and as set out with modifications in the schedule to this act (in this act referred to as "the rules") should, subject to the provisions of this act, be given the force of law with a view to establishing the responsibilities, liabilities, rights, and immunities attaching to carriers under bills of lading:

Be it therefore enacted by the King's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords, spiritual and temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:

1. Subject to the provisions of this act, the rules shall have effect in relation to and in connection with the carriage of goods by sea in ships carrying goods from any port in Great Britain or Northern Ireland to any other port whether in or outside Great Britain or Northern Ireland.

2. There shall not be implied in any contract for the carriage of goods by sea to which the rules apply any absolute undertaking by the carrier of the goods to provide a seaworthy ship.

3. Every bill of lading or similar document of title, issued in Great Britain or Northern Ireland which contains or is evidence of any contract to which the rules apply shall contain an express statement that it is to have effect subject to the provisions of the said rules as applied by this act.

4. Article VI of the rules shall, in relation to the carriage of goods by sea in ships carrying goods from any port in Great Britain or Northern Ireland to any other port in Great Britain or Northern Ireland or to a port in the Irish Free State, have effect as though the said article referred to goods of any class instead of to particular goods and as though the proviso to the second paragraph of the said article were omitted.

5. 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, then, notwithstanding anything in the rules, the bill of lading shall not be deemed 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.

6. (1) This act may be cited as the carriage of goods by sea act, 1924. (2) Nothing in this act shall affect the operation of sections 446 to 450, both inclusive, 502, and 503 of the merchant shipping act, 1894, as amended by any subsequent enactment, or the operation of any other enactment for the time being in force limiting the liability of the owners of seagoing vessels.

(3) 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 30th day of June, 1924, as His Majesty may by order in council direct, nor to any bill of lading or similar document of title issued, whether before or after such day as aforesaid, in pursuance of any such contract as aforesaid.

RULES RELATING TO BILLS OF LADING

ARTICLE I. Definitions

In these rules the following expressions have the meanings hereby assigned to them respectively, that is to say: (a) "Carrier" includes the owner or the charterer who enters into a contract of carriage with a shipper; (b) "Contract of carriage" applies only to contracts of carriage covered by a bill of lading or any similar document of title, in so far as such document relates to the carriage of goods by sea, including 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; (c) "Goods" includes goods, wares, merchandises, and articles of every kind whatsoever, except live animals and cargo which by the contract of carriage is stated as being carried on deck and is so carried; (d) "Ship" means any vessel used for the carriage of goods by sea; (e) Carriage of goods" covers the period from the time when the goods are loaded on to the time when they are discharged from the ship.

ARTICLE II. Risks

Subject to the provisions of Article VI, under every contract of carriage of goods by sea the carrier, in relation to the loading, handling, stowage, carriage, custody, care, and discharge of such goods, shall be subject to the responsibilities and liabilities, and entitled to the rights and immunities hereinafter set forth.

ARTICLE III. Responsibilities and liabilities

1. The carrier shall be bound, before and at the beginning of the voyage, to exercise due diligence to: (a) Make the ship seaworthy; (b) Properly man, equip, and supply the ship; (c) 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.

2. Subject to the provisions of Article IV, the carrier shall properly and carefully load, handle, stow, carry, keep, care for and discharge the goods carried. 3. After receiving the goods into his charge, the carrier, or the master or agent of the carrier, shall, on demand of the shipper, issue to the shipper a bill of lading showing among other things: (a) The leading marks necessary for identification of the goods as the same are furnished in writing by the shipper before the loading of such goods starts, provided such marks are stamped or otherwise shown clearly upon the goods if uncovered, or on the cases or coverings in which such goods are contained, in such a manner as should ordinarily remain legible until the end of the voyage; (b) either the number of packages or pieces, or the quantity, or weight, as the case may be, as furnished in writing by the shipper; (c) the apparent order and condition of the goods: Provided, That no carrier, master, or agent of the carrier, shall be bound to state or show in the bill of lading any marks, number, quantity, or weight which he has reasonable ground for suspecting not accurately to represent the goods actually received, or which he has had no reasonable means of checking.

4. Such a bill of lading shall be prima facie evidence of the receipt by the carrier of the goods as therein described in accordance with paragraph 3 (a), (b), and (c).

5. The shipper shall be deemed to have guaranteed to the carrier the accuracy at the time of shipment of the marks, number, quantity, and weight, as furnished by him, and the shipper shall indemnify the carrier against all loss, damages, and expenses arising or resulting from inaccuracies in such particulars. The right of the carrier to such indemnity shall in no way limit his responsibility and liability under the contract of carriage to any person other than the shipper.

6. Unless otice of loss or damage and the general nature of such loss or damage be given in writing to the carrier or his agent at the port of discharge before or at the time of the removal of the goods into the custody of the person entitled to delivery thereof under the contract of carriage, or, if the loss or damage be not apparent, within three days, such removal shall be prima facie evidence of the delivery by the carrier of the goods as described in the bill of lading.

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 joint survey or inspection.

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 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 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