Mr. BRIGGS. It is not only the print of the bill of lading you are concerned with? Mr. DRAPER. No. Mr. BRIGGS. It is to see what the changes are in this legislation. We are not concerned in sitting here just to hear that this may affect foreign trade. We want to know how it will affect you, in your foreign trade, that is, whether it will increase it or decrease it, and discuss ways of giving you help that is needed, and in what respect. Mr. DRAPER. This language is generally printed in small type matter. Without notice to anybody you will go along, read it carefully with a magnifying glass, and think you know what is in it. You probably will not know, but you think you do. The next time you do business in exporting, the next time you get a bill of lading, it looks substantially like the one you have been getting, but when your goods get on the other side you find it has been revised and somebody else has put in other language there that gives the carrier every exemption, and when you run into that in one exporting company several times, we feel that those bills of lading should be made in some uniform fashion, and this is the nearest approach we have ever seen to it. It would be distinctly beneficial to us because these changes can not be made on these bills of lading. We would know where we stood in so far, at least, as this law is concerned. Mr. BRIGGS. In other words, I understand what you mean is a uniform bill of lading that the carrier can not change. Mr. DRAPER. Yes. Mr. BRIGGS. Unless it is by agreement with the shipper. Mr. DRAPER. That is what I say, if you hook up this with title 2, section 10, he can not make any agreement with any individual shipper unless he in fact makes such an agreement with them all, that is, when he is acting as a common carrier. At the present time he can do that. Of course, he is prohibited from rebating in this country, but he can do it in other countries and he can do a thing of this sort. A very large shipper, we will say, will make an arrangement with the steamship company Mr. ABERNETHY. He is prohibited from rebating? That applies to rail carriers. It does not affect ocean carriers. Mr. DRAPER. He can not give any rebate in the United States. But he can do this. He can make some arrangement whereby he will say, we will unload your stuff at the docks and not make warehouse charges, but to the other people, that is, your competitor, we will make a charge against and there is not any way in the world now that we can stop that in this country if it happens at a foreign port, but we do think it can be stopped in this bill of lading; that if he gives anything in the bill of lading or to one shipper he would have to give it to the other, this is provided for under this language in title 2. Mr. BRIGGS. That is one of the things you think is an advantage. Mr. DRAPER. Yes. Mr. BRIGGS. In other words, you have an uniform bill of lading and know particularly what the conditions are and it can not be changed. Mr. DRAPER. Yes. Mr. BRIGGS. What is the next improvement over existing law? Mr. DRAPER. The next is the prevention of discriminations between competing shippers. Mr. BRIGGS. That grows out largely of these provisions of the bill of lading. Mr. DRAPER. It is specifically provided for in title 2; yes. Mr. BRIGGS. In other words, they are all subject to the same conditions. Mr. DRAPER. At any given time and under the same circumstances. Mr. BRIGGS. Exactly like a railroad bill of lading. Mr. DRAPER. Absolutely. Mr. BRIGGS. That does not obtain at the present time. Mr. DRAPER. No. Mr. BRIGGS. What is the next? Mr. DRAPER. I think, generally speaking, those two things are the principal benefits. Mr. MEYRICK. The value of the package. Mr. BRIGGS. Before you touch the package proposition, I will ask you this: Is it contended that advantage would have to be uniform, too, in all cases? Mr. DRAPER. No, sir; that contention does not exist. Mr. BRIGGS. That is what I thought. They still have control over the rates as occasion might dictate. Mr. DRAPER. Yes; the rates are largely fixed by the steamship conference. Mr. BRIGGS. The steamship company wants to get a cargo at a lower rate to fill up, is that it? Mr. DRAPER. I do not think they could under the conference agreement; that is, those companies that are in the conference. Mr. PARKER. A tramp ship could do it. Mr. DRAPER. But not a conference ship. Mr. BRIGGS. That is an understanding between the parties themselves, not according to law. That is purely an agreement between the steamship companies. Mr. DRAPER. They are conferences that are approved by the Shipping Board. Mr. BRIGGS. What is the next provision? Do you want to talk about the package? Mr. DRAPER. Mr. Haight made quite a point about that $500 limit. That is probably an advantage to a number of shippers, shippers of freight that is valuable in each one of its units; for example, automobiles. For that reason I think there is a distinct advantage in that language to people who are shipping such freight. It is of no value whatsoever to us because we do not ship packages worth $500. Mr. BRIGGS. They say packages or units, so much, but does not the liability of the company increase to some extent? Mr. DRAPER. I think it is in here, "per customary freight unit.” The language has been changed so many times. It used to be packages or units. I think it has been changed to customary freight units. Mr. BRIGGS. That is immaterial. Do you generally rely entirely on the insurance company for indemnity or loss, or do you also have recourse to the liability of carriers? Mr. DRAPER. Both. It depends on the way we ship. Mr. BRIGGS. Would you prefer to have the basis of indemnity optional, liability in the insurance company based upon the policy or to have that and the liability of the carrier in addition? Mr. DRAPER. I think we would like very much to have both, as a matter of fact, but we have more luck in securing payment for loss or damage from the insurance company than we do from carriers. Let me explain the reason that answer may sound a little ambiguous. We ship in a number of different ways. Our direct sales, for example, to people who buy from us abroad are c. i. f. sales; that is, cost, insurance, freight. Then we ship vast quantities of goods consigned to ourselves in England, Germany, France, and where not. Mr. BRIGGS. Which is insured, too. Mr. DRAPER. Most of it is insured. It may be that we might do the insuring ourselves. Some of our companies might be self-insurers. They might reinsure in outside companies or some other company might take out straight insurance. There are so many different ways. Mr. BRIGGS. You testified here of an experience whereby you undertook to utilize the steamship service for transportation of some commodity to Marseille, but there was a deviation in the routing of the ship subsequently, so as to carry this to the Mediterranean, to an eastern port on the Mediterranean, with the result that you had a loss of your shipment, a shipload of meats or whatever it was. Is that correct? Mr. DRAPER. Yes. Mr. BRIGGS. Did you have thar cargo insured? Mr. DRAPER. No, sir, not against deviation, no. Mr. BRIGGS. You did not? Mr. DRAPER. No. Mr. BRIGGS. On that you did not have any recourse against the ship or shipowners, no recourse at all? Mr. DRAPER. No, we did not get a dime out of it. Mr. BRIGGS. Does this bill give you any additional right you did not have before? Mr. DRAPER. We think it would. We think that deviation clause would give us those rights. Mr. BRIGGS. What else have you beneficial in this bill that you have not now? Mr. DRAPER. I think that lockout proviso would be extremely beneficial to get that language in. Mr. BRIGGS. Do you have it now? Mr. DRAPER. This is the reason why it would be beneficial. One of our companies shipped a very considerable consignment of goods to Habana, Cuba. When the vessel arrived there the steamship company was having a row with its stevedores and they let the ship lie off the docks while they scrapped with the stevedores for quite a while, with may tons of our perishable goods on board. They could have sailed right across the harbor and unloaded at a point where there was not this trouble with stevedores, but in order to fight their own battles with their own employees, they let their ship stay right there and fought their battle at the expense of our goods, and we could not get a nickel out of them. Mr. BRIGGS. That is why you want this provision in there. Mr. BRIGGS. What else is there in this bill that gives you an added benefit you do not have in the existing law? Mr. DRAPER. That about covers it. Mr. BRIGGS. Are you losing anything you now have under existing law, by enactment of legislation such as this, or would you lose anything? Mr. DRAPER. There is a question there as to whether or not we might not lose a bit of a fraction that is given to us by section 2 of the Harter Act. Mr. ABERNETHY. Read that again. Mr. DRAPER. Section 2 of the Harter Act: That it shall not be lawful for any vessel trasporting merchandise or property from or between ports of the United States of America and foreign ports, her owner master, agent, or manager, to insert in any bill of lading or shipping document any covenant or agreement whereby the obligations of the owner or owners of said vessel to exercise due diligence properly equip, man, provision, and outfit said vessel, and to make said vessel seaworthy and capable of performing her intended voyage, or whereby obligations of the master, officers, agents, or servants to carefully handle and stow her cargo and to care for and properly deliver same, shall in any wise be lessened, weakened, or avoided. But when you read that in connection with section 1, there is doubt as to whether or not that section would be effective at all because section 1 of the Harter Act makes it specifically unlawful "for the manager, agent, master, or owner of any vessel transporting merchandise or property from or between ports of the United States and foreign ports to insert in any bill of lading or shipping document any clause, covenant, or agreement whereby it, he, or they shall be relieved from liability for loss or damage arising from negligence," and so forth. In other words, that is a specific provision preventing it. Mr. ABERNETHY. Turn over in this act to where it relieves them of negligence but that act says they can not relieve themselves of it. Mr. DRAPER. If I may explain the difference, section 1 prohibits the inclusion of any of these things in a bill of lading. That applies to issuing a bill of lading with any of these things in it, whereas section 2 relates to the actual transportation of the goods and not to the issuance of a bill of lading. Mr. ABERNETHY. Let me see that act. Mr. DRAPER. Yes. Mr. BRAND. If I read this White bill correctly, it seems to permit any kind of bill of lading that the carrier and the shipper can agree on, if they want to avoid this law. Mr. DRAPER. I think that probably is true. Mr. BRAND. Would the Harter Act still step in and make certain requirements? Mr. DRAPER. I should think it would. Our advisers say it would be the case and still be operative. Mr. BRAND. Who are your legal department? Mr. DRAPER. Our legal committee is composed of Charles J. Faulkner, of Chicago, general counsel of Armour & Co. He is chairman of it. Also Mr. Henry Veeder, general counsel of Swift & Co., of Chicago; Mr. Thomas Creigh, general counsel of the Cudahy Packing Co., of Chicago. Mr. ABERNETHY. It is 10 minutes to 12, when we will have to adjourn, and I will insist that this witness appear here for cross-examina tion. I have not had a chance up to date, according to the order in the committee, to ask a question, and according to our rules we go by seniority, which is all right. I am not objecting to the length of time taken in discussion of this bill in cross-examination. I want every member to get at the whole thing. Now, seriously, I think these hearings should be adjourned until we convene the full committee and we can have everybody interested in this matter before It is piecemeal now. us. STATEMENT OF J. H. BEEK, CHICAGO, ILL., REPRESENTING THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL TRAFFIC LEAGUE Mr. BEEK. I am perfectly willing to stay here and will be here and available at any time, but it so happens that I have an argument before the Interstate Commerce Commission to-morrow morning at 10 o'clock. That has been set for long before these committee hearings were set, and there will be in a day or so some other hearings about the motor bus bill, and Chairman Parker expects me to participate in, and at the same time I can not go there and be here, and I can not be here to-morrow morning, although I am in the city. Mr. ABERNETHY. When did Mr. Haight say he would be back? Mr. BEEK. In April, about the 20th, on a Friday. I am perfectly willing to go along. Mr. SLOAN. As far as that is concerned we have plenty of material to work on without you. When Mr. Briggs gets through with Mr. Draper, Mr. Abernethy shall have all the time he wants with him and I may ask some questions myself, and then we have Mr. Myrick. Mr. ABERNETHY. We should have a quorum when we examine these witnesses. No one will have time to read the printed hearings and get the details. They should be present. I am going to object to any further hearing unless you have a quorum. You may as well get a quorum or you will not have any hearings. Mr. SLOAN. Let me make this suggestion. We are holding hearings but a great deal of this matter could be stated in the form of briefs, in which case we would be denied the opportunity of cross-examination. Some of these witnesses are here and they may not be here again. Personally, I would like to ask them some questions, irrespective of the action this committee takes or whether it takes any action. I would like to have their viewpoint. Mr. ABERNETHY. You may as well understand I am going to demand from now on all through these hearings a quorum. We should not go into this matter, involving as if does all the shippers of the country, with this one witness, without a quorum. We might as well select a time when we can all be here and arrange for hearing the witnesses, but we have only one lawyer from New York, who has gone back, and a representative of the chamber of commerce, besides this witness. We sat here one day until 2.30 o'clock to accommodate Mr. Haight. I am just as agreeable as anybody and try to be agreeable, but I have some definite views on this thing, and for one I do not propose that this legislation shall be hurried through this session of Congress. I am willing to take all the time necessary, one month or two months to go into this matter fully, and I for one member of the committee serve notice on everybody that from now on we must have a quorum and have everybody interested in this matter here. |