Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

to the shipper except in the one perfectly trivial point which Mr. Beecher brought out yesterday and on which, I think, from the question I asked, indicated that only one lawyer in the room, in the course of a combined practice, perhaps, of 100 years, has ever had a case. Mr. Englar said he has had one case that devolved on this question of whether seaworthiness is a condition precedent to the benefit of the Harter Act. Surely a trivial matter of that kind is not going to wreck our whole enterprise as against the fact that Mr. Heinemann, after a painstaking investigation of 20 months, can find no particular wherein the shipper is worse off than he is to-day, and we have the three great reforms wherein the shipper is tremendously benefited-the £100 per package, the claims clause, and the burden of proving pilferage and other claims, for which reform, as you know, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Edmonds, a clamor has been made for years. They are not available to the shipper. A fourth point which has been productive of more confusion, perhaps, than any other, is where the shipper has had to put into his bill of lading that the shipowner is to have the benefit of insurance placed by the shipper. That never was a conscionable provision to put in your bill of lading that the carrier is not responsible for any risks that can be insured against, which means that the other man pays the premium and he takes the benefit of it. That is wiped out.

Now, when we compare the rules with the Harter Act, the great benefits to the shipper stand out perfectly obviously to any man who reads the rules with frankness. I think those advantages ought to be afforded to American shippers; they ought to be afforded to the merchants of the entire world. America is in a position where, if we will take the lead, there is no question but what the rest of the world is ready to fall into line on uniformity; but if Âmerica stands up and tries to block it, very likely we

can not.

Mr. CAMPBELL. On that point, do you mean if we should go ahead and adopt something entirely different from the Brussels convention that the rest of the world would fall in behind us?

Mr. HAIGHT. No; I do not. I say if we will to-day take the lead on the uniform rules which have now been agreed to by practical men, I do not believe there is any question but what the other 23 nations which have agreed to the rules, so far as their diplomatic representatives go, will ratify the rules; but if we refuse to accept those rules I believe the rest of them will say, "What's the use? America won't come in; we can never make a success of it. Let us go back to where we were.' And the whole battle will have to be fought over again. And, for one, I am getting fairly tired. The International Chamber has had me working now for 20 months. I am not going to be able to live on the glory of the proposition much longer.

As I say, by comparison of the rules and the Harter Act, there is no question about the desirability, from the shippers' standpoint, of accepting the rules; and we really come down now to Mr. Heinemann's real opposition, namely, that he does not like the Harter Act. He opposes these rules because, if we accept them, they will become fixed law; and what he wants is the McKellar bill. He wants an unlimited liability forced upon the ocean carrier-no exemption from errors of navigation, no exemption from errors in management of the ship. Now, does Congress to-day, which is trying to foster American shipping, want to follow Mr. Heinemann to the extent of placing upon the American carrier a responsibility which no carrier on the sea has ever been required to bear heretofore and which no carrier, except the American, will ever be asked to bear? The McKellar bill is a precise copy, word for word, of the old Nelson bill which was debated fully in the Senate 10 or 15 years ago and definitely discarded, and which is never going to be passed, in my judgment.

Now, I think it is fair for this committee to remember when you hear such arguments as Mr. Heinemann has made that we did have delegates representing the United States at Brussels, and while Mr. Heinemann may think that the Secretary of State and the President ought to have chosen some representative of the packers to represent this country, they did not think so. But in Judge Hough, of our Circuit Court for the Second Circuit, I think most people will recognize the fact that the President chose probably the best qualified man this country has, by virtue of his long practice and by virtue of his 16 years on the bench, during which time he has handled admiralty questions day after day. Is it to be assumed that because a clause suits Judge Hough, and Mr. Beecher, the admiralty counsel of the Shipping Board, but does not suit Mr. Heinemann, that the packers are necessarily right and our experts are wrong? I should say the presumption would be rather the other way.

Now, surely the majority throughout the world should have some influence in world questions; surely the majority should have some influence in American questions, and Mr. Heinemann has stated, quite frankly, he thinks, throughout the British Empire, that the shippers are now unanimous in wanting the rules. I can not deny that, in America, the only really definite opposition that we have had in the last

20 months has been that which the packer himself has voiced or has instigated. Now, if throughout the world the bankers are unaminous to a man, practically; if throughout the world the cargo underwriters are unanimous practically to a man; if to-day the shipping conference of the world has said we will take the rules, and the Shipping Board comes here, although not officially, but through Mr. Beecher, but if it is true that the American steamship owners and the Shipping Board are not going to oppose the rules, we have the three interests unanimous.

Then we come to the shippers. The United States Chamber of Commerce, the Merchants Association of New York, the Foreign Trade Council (the great American organization in foreign trade, which does nothing else), and organizations like that, without a dissenting voice approve these rules, surely one man who is picking out little details and engaging in rather hypercritical criticism, it does not seem to me that it should wreck the enterprise in toto. Now, when the foreign shipper unanimously accepts these rules (and you will recognize he has the same problems that the packer has; that his problems do not in any way differ), if he accepts the rules because he sees in them an advantage which more than overweighs any objections—and I think every man to-day will say, without hesitation, that the rules are unquestionably what he wants, unless he wants to defeat the rules in order to get the McKellar bill, and then, of course, he will keep on fighting them-those are substantial answers to Mr. Heinemann's main arguments, and the unsubstantial ones I would like to treat in just a word. Of course, it makes no difference whether Mr. Heinemann was or was not heard, if the rules are right. If they are right, well and good. But one of the strong arguments Mr. Heinemann has made against the rules is that he had no opportunity to be heard in voicing his opposition. Now I want to explain the full facts to you about that, because I would not willingly have had anybody kept in ignorance of anything that has taken place in connection with these rules because, by a stroke of great ill luck, I was named as the American representative of the bill of lading committee of the international chamber and it was my business to handle the campaign of education in America. And I came back from Europe in August, 1921, for the purpose of frankly laying the whole subject of the rules before every man that I could reach in America. The rules as they stand to-day are the rules that we had drafted then, except in so far as they have been changed for the benefit of the shippers. There is no argument that can be made to-day against the rules that could not be made then. Mr. Heinemann has to-day started to make a number of criticisms and then said, "Well, that has been covered.' And we have been trying to cover them and he has had these rules and has studied those rules for twenty months. The first argument I had, as the representative of the International Chamber in this country, was before the traffic committee of the Institute of American Meat Packers and I took the time and the trouble (and, incidentally, spent the necessary money) to go to Chicago to meet Mr. Herrick, the chairman of that committee, and his entire committee, and I spent, as I remember, from 2 p. m. until 7 p. m. one night putting the whole subject up to the meat packers. They were not kept in ignorance and they voiced the same objections we have heard to-day.

I went out to Cleveland and spoke before a committee of the Cleveland Chamber of Commerce and there again the packers were represented and, unless I am much mistaken, fully stated their comments at a subsequent meeting.

At the Manufacturers and Exporters Association in New York, at their annual convention a year ago, I was invited to speak on behalf of the rules and Mr. Heinemann in opposition, and we had a joint debate running over a couple of hours, and again he was heard and expressed all of his arguments he has expressed to-day, and still they passed a resolution in favor of the rules.

Then before the Foreign Trade Council, in Philadelphia, last May, five or six hundred men engaged in traffic heard Mr. Heinemann and heard me, and again Mr. Heinemann voiced all of his objections, and still the Traffic League has passed resolutions and is in favor of the rules.

And last May the United States Chamber of Commerce devoted a considerable part of its annual meeting to a full discussion of The Hague rules. There was a group meeting, unfortunately not well attended, where no resolution was passed, whereupon we asked for a hearing before the resolutions committee. Mr. Strong of Chicago was the chairman of that committee. Mr. Herrick and Mr. Heinemann were both invited

before the committee.

Mr. HEINEMANN. I beg your pardon; I was not.

Mr. HAIGHT. You may not have been invited, but you were there.

Mr. HEINEMANN. I was not.

Mr. CHINDBLOM. Was that Mr. Silas H. Strong?

Mr. HAIGHT. Mr. Silas H. Strong of Chicago was the chairman of that resolutions committee. Mr. Herrick submitted there the arguments which Mr. Heinemann has largely read here to-day from print.

Mr. CHINDBLOM. Is that Mr. Herrick of the Great Lakes Co.?
Mr. HAIGHT. Mr. Herrick is Mr. Heinemann's superior.
Mr. HEINEMANN. He is the president of the institute.

Mr. HAIGHT. The same arguments which Mr. Heinemann has read here to-day, from practically the same printed page, were all heard before Mr. Strong's committee, the most representative committee that the United States Chamber of Commerce could put together, and one vote was recorded in favor of Mr. Herrick's opposition and the arguments made here to-day.

Mr. ENGLAR. How many in favor of it?

Mr. HAIGHT. I think the committee consisted of 20. And then last September, or October

Mr. CHINDBLOM. Let me see if I understand that. a committee of the institute?

You say the meeting was before

Mr. HAIGHT. No, sir. · At the last meeting of the United States Chamber of Commerce there was a committee on resolutions which heard both sides, as to whether the United States Chamber should or should not go on record as favoring, for the great American business world, the adoption of The Hague rules.

Mr. BLAND. After all, is that material? Is not the question here whether this committee finds Mr. Heinemann's objections meritorious?

Mr. HAIGHT. Right. I prefaced my remarks by saying this was the unsubstantial point which, however, I think I ought to answer; because if this committee felt the meat packers had never had a chance to be heard, you would think they ought to be heard.

Now the final hearing was before the United States Shipping Board and Mr. Edmonds will remember that we came to him first and said let us have a hearing before the House committee, where everybody can be present; where the testimony can be officially taken in order to make a record upon which the American delegates may go to Brussels knowing what the American business world wants. Mr. Edmonds thought that was not practicable, so that Mr. Beecher arranged it so that the Shipping Board held its own hearings and everybody was invited to come down there and debate these rules.

Mr. BLAND. Am I to understand that these various meetings were before you went abroad?

Mr. HAIGHT. All of them, sir; some of them a year before.

Mr. CHINDBLOM. When was the Shipping Board meeting; let us get that into the record?

Mr. HAIGHT. The Shipping Board meeting took place-do you remember the date, Mr. Beecher?

Mr. BEECHER. September 20-21, 1922.

Mr. HAIGHT. Notices were sent out to the entire commercial world to come to that meeting and we had a large representation and Mr. Herrick, who is the president of the Packers Institute, came on from Chicago and argued his points at length. Everybody heard the points. I reheard them for the fourth or sixth time. But he did not convince the rest of the people, and the mandate which that meeting certainly conveyed to me and I think to Mr. Beecher was this: Go to the other side and correct some of these things if you can; but do not come back without some agreement. And they did correct some of the points that had been raised and made the rules more favorable to the shipper, and they brought back to America an agreement, and I can not for the life of me see how anybody, who has met me in open debate for over a year, can suggest that he has never had a chance to be heard. He simply has not been able to convince the rest of the people he is right; that is all.

Now there are a few minor details that I do not know I ought to take up the time to discuss. On the question of a "shipped" bill of lading and a received-for-shipment bill of lading, nobody can change the facts as they exist. Steamship companies do issue bills of lading showing the goods have been received for shipment where a vessel is not going to sail for a week or two weeks and the goods are delivered on her dock. That is one of the kinds of business that has to be done. On the other hand, there are some people who say "we won't have a received-for-shipment bill of lading where the goods may lie on the dock for three months. It means nothing to us. We will only accept a draft-drawn-against bill of lading which says the goods have been put on the ship." All right; that man can contract for a "shipped" bill of lading. But these rules have recognized the fact that some people want received-for-shipment bills and some want "shipped" bills, and they are both good.

You realize that will protect, as far as we can, the business as it is done; there is no use of our shutting our eyes to the way business is done. Mr. Heinemann does not want a "shipped" bill, because he wants to draw against the documents, perhaps, the minute he delivers to the railroad. If the buyer is satisfied, we do not object;

the rules do not stop him; he can go right on doing business just as he has been doing it. But if by any chance somebody says I insist upon a "shipped" bill, he can take his received-for-shipment bill down to the carrier and get it stamped "These goods are on the steamship Aesop," or whatever ship it may be.

Now, to my great amazement, Mr. Heinemann has been objecting to having the shipper required to state exactly what his goods are-dressed meats-the numbers and weights, his own figures, and holding to them. Now I want the shipper to be just as honest as I do the carrier; but I want the shipper who makes out his own bill of lading-you gentlemen won't overlook the fact that the bill of lading is never made out by the steamship company; it is made out by the shipper, in his own officeand carries it down to the steamship company and gets them to sign it and takes its dock receipt to verify it, to be required, when he makes out that bill of lading, to state the truth. Why shouldn't he be required, when he makes out that bill of lading, upon the faith of which the banks are going to loan money, to state the truth and to be held responsible if he fails to do so? I can not see why not.

Mr. Heinemann has also said on page 5, section (h), it means nothing. It says that

66

'Any clause, covenant, or agreement in a contract of carriage relieving the carrier or the ship from liability for loss or damage to, or in connection with, goods arising from negligence, fault, or failure in the duties and obligations provided in this section or lessening such liability otherwise than as provided in this Act shall be null and void

*

*

[ocr errors]

Mr. Heinemann says that means nothing. How can a man say a clause like that means nothing? It says your rules shall apply; that the bill of lading has got to be regulated by those rules and any clause which seeks to evade them is void. Surely, a criticism of that kind is at least made because of a mistake.

On page 9, section 5, it is contended it is altogether objectionable-"A carrier shall be at liberty to surrender in whole or in part all or any of his rights and immunities under this act." If you do not have in a clause of that kind, how are you going to provide for the case where the shipper says "My goods are worth $1,000. I want a bill of lading which says you are liable for $1,000." If the rules read the carrier shall only be responsible for $500 and the carrier can not broaden his liability, he is stopped right there from accepting goods that are worth more and giving the man a guarantee of a higher value; and surely we want no strait-jacket in the rules; we do not want to stop legitimate business from being done. That would do it.

Mr. Edmonds himself has felt that that clause is objectionable, and I am particularly sorry to have heard that this morning; but I do not see how a code can be so framed that it will be applicable the world over to all kinds of trade if you make, as I said, a strait-jacket out of these rules and say to the carrier, first, you can not give a less favorable bill to anybody and, then, you can not give a more favorable to anybody. The man who is willing to pay for the insured bill of lading ought to be able to get it. In our coastwise trade, a large part of the bills are insured bills of lading. You make your arrangements. Now the Clyde Line and the Mallory Line could not give an insured bill of lading at all, if you struck out section 5 on page 9 of the bill. Surely, we do not want to accomplish that.

Mr. EDMONDS. If it is for the general good, you know I am willing to swallow that section. [Laughter.]

Mr. HAIGHT. I think it is really an essential part of our whole system.

Mr. LAWS. Does not that section on page 9 give the shipowner the right to agree on a different value, without that clause?

Mr. HAIGHT. I do not know.

Mr. Laws. It says so.

Mr. HAIGHT. Wait a minute. It says "unless the nature and value of the goods have been declared by the shipper." That is by inference; but certainly section 5 is necessary on your insured bill.

Mr. Laws. Couldn't he declare the goods at a value of $1,000 and cover it? Mr. BEECHER. Your point is probably good, but for the insured operation you have to have section 5.

Mr. HAIGHT. Certainly section 5 is specific authority to increase and perhaps you do not need that; but on the insured bill you absolutely need it.

Now the summary which Mr. Heinemann gave us of the points he particularly objected to, were, first, the period of the rules. We all admit that has got to be only from loading to discharge and that the Harter Act is not affected beyond that; so that that argument fails.

On the claims clause, he asks you to substitute a clause which no other shipper in this country, and I know no other shipper of the world outside of this country, would

prefer to the clause that is here now, because it gives him an unlimited 12 months' right.

On the deviation clause, surely the man who wants liner conditions has only to go to the liner ships. We all know the Celtic and the Baltic and the other White Star boats from New York to Liverpool go to Liverpool and do not go anywhere else; and no man has to worry about it. But if you ship by a fly-by-night concern that lies to you, that defaults in its contracts, (like this Marseilles case Mr. Heinemann spoke of as an example of a recent occurrence, but the same case was argued to me by Mr. Herrick 12 or 15 months ago) that is due to your own fault.

Mr. BEECHER. Your statement about the White Star Line is also true of the United States Line. [Laughter.]

Mr. HAIGHT. Quite so. It is true of every regular line running. The United States Line is one of the Shipping Board's lines; yes. They do not run all over the face of the earth. But if you take a man with whom you make a contract for direct shipment and he does not carry it out, but hauls your stuff around the Mediterranean for 15 months with this packer's stuff aboard, you have dealt with the wrong man. We can not correct the morals of the entire shipping world; but if they will deal with responsible, reputable, shipping concerns, they will have their business done just as everybody else; and if they want a liner service they will go to a liner company and get it shipped and know their goods are going just as straight as other people's goods.

Mr. BEECHER. Referring to Mr. Herrick's famous case, do you think any court would hold that the deviation of which he complains would be a reasonable deviation? Mr. HAIGHT. It is unthinkable to believe any man can agree to carry goods direct and then make Marseilles the eighth or ninth or fifteenth stop and arrive there months afterwards with the goods all destroyed, and still not have to pay a claim; but if they have made a contract under which that thing can happen to them, I can only say it is their own fault.

Mr. BEECHER. In other words, if Mr. Herrick had had the benefit of these rules at that time, he would have had full recovery and would never have had that case to complain of?

Mr. HAIGHT. If he had had these rules, in that case probably full recovery would

have been awarded.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Don't you think he can recover to-day?

Mr. HAIGHT. I do, yes; I do not know of any reason why he could not. Now, I hope the committee will not think this thing has to be debated year after year for 17 years more. The people have known about it, have heard about it, and have expressed their views. Now, if they have not convinced anybody, some day we have got to have a vote. In fact, when the convention arrives here, it will go before the Senate as soon as it is in session and we will have to have legislation to put it into effect, and I hope that will be done as promptly as may be, in order that some of us can go back to work again.

Mr. Laws. Do you not think section 5 is a dangerous section, in that it does not provide in here that any shipper shall have the right to get a bill of lading giving him the same advantages as are given to anybody else? In other words, do you not think it would be better and safer and fairer to provide in there that a shipper shall have the right to demand from the carrier-any shipper shall have the right to demand from the carrier an insured bill of lading?

Mr. HAIGHT. I do not feel, Mr. Laws, that we ought to try in an international code to regulate the morals of the entire world on all subjects. Now, you have in our law to-day, read to you this morning, a provision where in your protection and the protection of the shippers is so amply covered that you can not possibly suggest that you are not fully protected already. I do not want to put into a code like this provisions that are already fully covered, which are pure surplusage, and to try to get all the rest of the world to come to that same form of procedure.

Mr. LAWS. Does not this open the door to secret discriminations between shippers? How can one shipper tell why it is that another shipper is able to get his goods to a foreign port cheaper than he seems to be able to do, and you certainly can do it under that clause? Mr. HAIGHT. It does not open the door when the door has once been shut. If you say a man is willing to violate the law, why he would just as soon violate two laws at once as to violate one, and I do not see any reason for reenacting, in other words, the same provision you have already on your books once.

Mr. LAWS. But you certainly leave in doubt as to whether or not one shipper can not by a secret agreement get an advantage, either in terms or rates, over another one, by leaving it open to the big shipper and the carrier to agree to give him a better bill of lading than other shippers of like commodities, between like ports, are given? Is not that possible under that clause?

« AnteriorContinuar »