There are some features of the bill which I think are pretty hard on the shipowners. They have been the debating ground between us ever since this legislation first came before Congress. Those two matters generally pertain to notice of claims and the institution of suit in the event of damage to the goods, and limitations upon the right of deviation.

When the hearings were held a number of years ago, I felt that the deviation clause should be broadened so as to make it possible for ships to engage in trading voyages without being subjected to the liability of deviation. I wanted the privilege on the part of the ships to trade as they were required to do in order to carry on the business efficiently, at the same time not giving a ship the right to deviate so that it would do harm or injustice to any of the shippers who had shipped on board that vessel with the understanding that it was not to deviate. I think that my own apprehensions of those days were too great, and I believe that the shipping business of the American shipowners is so changing that the danger that I feared under that clause in those days, has largely disappeared.

As a result of the ocean mail contracts, the American merchant marine in foreign trade-that is, the common carriers in the American merchant marine in foreign trade-are largely engaged in liner service. I believe that this country's participation in the maritime trade of the world, through the ownership of ships, is going to be confined more and more to liner service. I do not see, in connection with the liner service, any particular danger of the deviation clause doing injustice to the shipowner. It is largely for that reason that I believe that the bill itself is a good bill from every point of view; and I am prepared to go as far as we possibly can in writing the deviation clause so that it will be agreeable to all of these various interests.

The bill is an important bill. It makes some changes in the existing law; not a great many. It will bring shipping documents in this country into uniformity and harmony with those of most of the other maritime countries, and it is in that that I think comes the great gain and the most important thing that justifies the enactment if the legislation.

These bills of lading are passing through banks, passing into the hands of innocent purchasers; they are a material part of our international trade, and for that reason it seems to me that if we can bring our law into uniformity those of the other nations, it would be a good thing to do it.

However, I think that the bill is a correct bill; that this committee. ought to give it the same thorough consideration that it does to all the bills that come before it, and ought to do it in the light of the facts of the shipping business.

There is certainly no disposition on the part of the ship owners to press the bill upon the committee, except that we do it in an intelligent way, and give you the benefit of our knowledge and experience in the shipping business, as the business will be affected by the bill.

I understand that Mr. Haight has requested that the matter be held open until he gets back from Europe, or so I was told this morning. In the meantime I shall get together with Mr. Draper, the shipper interests, and be very glad to see if we can not agree upon

102101-30-PT 1- -5

some language to go into the bill that pertains to these two or three provisions over which there has been some dispute. I think if we can agree, it might assist the committee very materially.

That is about all I have to say, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. LEHLBACH. Mr. Free, do you want to ask a question?

Mr. FREE. No language has been prepared yet?

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Draper submitted it to me some time ago. That was the first I had seen of it.

Mr. DRAPER. I have some language to submit to the committee when Mr. Campbell gets through.

Mr. FREE. You are going to offer that when you are a witness? Mr. DRAPER. Yes; and I will explain the circumstances regarding it. Mr. LEHLBACH. Judge Davis, do you have some question?

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Campbell, a number of members of the American Steamship owners, which you represent, are engaged in the foreign trade?

Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes, sir.

Mr. DAVIS. Have they any agreement with respect to the bills of lading which they use?

Mr. CAMPBELL. No, sir.

Mr. DAVIS. Is there any material variation or difference between the bills of lading you use, those used by the different American companies engaged in the foreign trade?

Mr. CAMPBELL. No; I think not.

Mr. DAVIS. As a matter of fact, they are all substantially the same, are they not?

Mr. CAMPBELL. I think so. The language of a clause may be different, but the effect of the clause is substantially the same in all these documents.

Mr. DAVIS. Will you file with the committee a copy of one of the standard bills of lading employed by these companies, and if there are bills of lading of a different type, get one of each kind?

Mr. CAMPBELL. I will be very glad to furnish them to you, anything you want.

Mr. DAVIS. I mean for the committee; I am not asking it for myself, but I am asking it to be filed with the committee for these hearings.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes; I will do that.

Mr. DAVIS. That was done at a former hearing, I recall.

Mr. CAMPBELL. I will be glad to do it.

Mr. DAVIS. Now, as we have not a copy of those bills of lading with us, I want to ask you what the limitation imposed in those bills of lading is with respect to the time within which suit may be brought? Mr. CAMPBELL. Well, it varies. Some bills of lading may contain a provision that suit would have to be brought in three months, or six months, or a year. Some of them contain provisions, I would say, that claims for loss or damage must be made before the goods are removed from the dock; and others, that the claim must be made within 30 or 60 days. Those time limits vary in the various forms of bills of lading.

Mr. DAVIS. What is the usual form in respect to the notice and in respect to the time within which suit may be brought?

Mr. CAMPBELL. Well, I do not think you could say that there is any uniformity.

Mr. DAVIS. I am talking now about the American lines.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes, sir. I do not think you can say that there is any uniformity, but I would say that the time limit for suits in all bills of lading probably does not extend beyond a year.

Mr. DAVIS. What percentage of them extend below a year?

Mr. CAMPBELL. I could not say that. I really do not know. It may be a very large percentage, so far as I know. I will tell you what I can do. I can get and file with you copies of the bills of lading from each one of the lines that are engaged, if you want that.

Mr. DAVIS. Well, if there is any variation, that is what I asked for, a copy of each, in case of variation.

Mr. CAMFBELL. There is some slight variation.

Mr. DAVIS. And you say there is a variation with respect to the time within which they shall give notice of damage?

Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes, sir.

Mr. DAVIS. Now, this pending bill does require that they shall give notice 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 the delivery thereof. That is on pages 4 and 5. It is subsection 6 on page 4.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes; but you see, that would only apply to a case of apparent damage. If the goods are apparently damaged, notice ought to be given, so that both the shipper and the shipowner would be on notice and could make an examination.

Mr. DAVIS. Yes. Assuming that to be true. But this provision in this law does not say in case of apparent damage; it says, "unless notice 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, such removal shall be prima facie evidence of the delivery by the carrier of the goods as prescribed in the bill of lading."

Mr. CAMPBELL. Well, if that is not restricted to damage which is apparent, then I think it is wrong.

Mr. DAVIS. It is unfair, is it not?

Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes, sir.

Mr. DAVIS. Because how could a man receiving a delivery of goods that, so far as the outward package is concerned, would be all right, how could he give notice?

Mr. CAMPBELL. That is the reason I thought it would apply only to apparent damage, because if there is nothing to call the attention of the consignee to the fact that the package is damaged, then he ought not to be bound to assert something that he does not know

exists.

Mr. DAVIS. In other words, this is more rigid against the shipper than the customer, so far as the bill of lading is concerned, is it not? Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes, I think it is, if you give it that construction. Mr. DAVIS. Not only in the respect which you mention, but many of them permit 30 days in which to give notice.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes, sir. Of course, many of the bills of lading undoubtedly require notice before delivery is taken, if the damage is apparent. Now, whether that is true in all cases, I do not know, but it certainly seems to me, in fairness to the owner of the goods, the receiver of the goods, and to the shipowner, that if there is an apparent damage to the package, then notice ought to be given at

that time, so that, if possible, a survey and examination can be made at that time. Now, if there is no notice, and nothing to call attention to the fact that there is damage, then notice before taking delivery should not be required; but notice ought to be required within a reasonable time after delivery is taken under those circumstances. Mr. DAVIS. Oh, yes; I agree with you as to the principle, but at the same time, nothing impossible or unreasonable should be required. Mr. CAMPBELL. Not a bit.

Mr. DAVIS. And everybody should be given a reasonable time. Suppose the agent of the consignee received the consignment, and to all appearances it is all right. This agent perhaps is not expected, and it is not his duty, to open up those goods at once. He is receiving them from some consignee, and may be they are to be transshipped by rail or water, and then they finally reach their destination, the ultimate consignee, the consumer. Of course, until he opens up those goods, he can not know, if the damage is not apparent, and he should have a reasonable time, as you suggest, within which to examine the goods and give the notice.

Mr. CAMPBELL. I think that is so, but, Judge Davis, does this clause really have the effect of what you think it does? It says that "unless notice 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, such removal shall be prima facie evidence of the delivery by the carrier of the goods as described in the bill of lading." Now, one would think that that would apply ouly to cases where there is no apparent damage.

Now, if the package is delivered by the shipowner to the shipper, it passes out of the custody of the shipowner, and if there is no apparent damage on the outside, why should it not be prima facie evidence that the package was delivered in good order? Why should not the burden be then upon the purchaser who takes it into his custody and examines it, to establish that the goods were damaged?

Now, when you come down to practical business, and the handling of those claims, those proofs are not difficult. It is really a question of who is to go forward with his case in the first instance.

Mr. DAVIS. Well, of course, where there is a damage apparent, I assume that they would mutually examine and see what was the damage.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Well, I think they do.

Mr. DAVIS. But it says "damage before or at the time."

Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes; but it does not say that notice must be given. It says that "unless notice of loss or damage" is given, it shall be prima facie evidence, and so forth.

Mr. DAVIS. That is true, of course, but at the same time I think a man should have reasonable notice before the burden of proof shifts against him to give notice. But the line of my inquiry right at this particular moment is to ascertain the difference between this bill and the present bill of lading that is the line-without entering into a discussion of the merits of it. I first want to get the picture, and pursue the line on the present bill of lading.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Excuse me a moment. I happen to have a copy of the old hearings. Was not the bill of lading put in as an exhibit in those hearings?

Mr. DAVIS. Yes; but that was several years ago. I do not know whether there has been any change in it or not.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Well, not substantially.

Mr. ABERNETHY. I understand from Mr. Haight that there has been considerable difference.

Mr. CAMPBELL. In bills of lading?

Mr. ABERNETHY. Yes; in his hearing yesterday he undertook to modify and amend the Harter Act to some extent.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Well, he can not do that.

Mr. DAVIS. Under this bill?

Mr. CAMPBELL. He is talking about the bill of lading under the Harter Act.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Your distinguished predecessor, as a witness here, seemed to think it did amend the Harter Act.

Mr. CAMPBELL. I thought you said that the bills of lading

Mr. ABERNETHY. I say that the bill of lading that you are asking us to make a law here, does, in effect, amend the Harter Act, according to Mr. Haight.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes; that is true enough. But I understood you to say that the bill of lading which had been changed in the past year

Mr. DAVIS. I am asking about the bill of lading that they are using now.

Mr. ABERNETHY. I beg your pardon. I did not want to break in. Mr. DAVIS. Now, Mr. Campbell, the British steamship lines now have a uniform bill of lading, do they not?

Mr. CAMPBELL. Well, if that is so, I did not know it.
Mr. DAVIS. Do you know, General Parker?

Mr. PARKER. It must be very recent, but Mr. Haight said at the meeting yesterday that the British had passed this law, and since they had passed the law, in the form of the one at the convention in Buffalo, it seems that the bill of lading must be more or less uniform.

Mr. DAVIS. Well, he did not say they had passed this law. He said they had passed a law carrying into effect the Hague code, with

a reservation.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Well, that is substantially this law, except Title II has been added to it.

Mr. MYRICK. Since the passage of the carriage of goods act by Parliament some of the English companies have adopted the bill of lading embodying those rules; that is to say, they are very much shorter; they simply say that this bill of lading is issued subject to the carriage of goods act.

Mr. DAVIS. Have either of you gentlemen a copy of the regular British bill of lading that you can file with the committee?

Mr. CAMPBELL. I can obtain that for you.

Mr. PARKER. Are not the bills of lading of most of the lines which are in the conference practically the same?

Mr. CAMPBELL. Well, I think so. I have never drawn a bill of lading having to do with the provisions of a bill of lading of a foreign line. I think the bills of lading are made up substantially as I have made up a bill of lading. Only recently I have been working on one. What do you do? You gather all the bills of lading that you can get your hands on, and you study them, and from those you take most of your clauses, you modify them according to your own views, and