Mr. HAIGHT. All of which means you leave in doubt whether a man would violate the law which Mr. Edmonds has already passed, or this committee has passed, providing against discrimination. Mr. PAUL. But in here, don't you give him specific authority to violate it? Mr. HAIGHT. No, you do not. Mr. Laws. Don't you permit him to do that very thing, without limit ng him, by some sort of secret agreement, which you could not make if that clause was not in there? Mr. HAIGHT. It has to be in the bill of lading. Mr. Laws. Suppose it is in the bill of lading; suppose some big shipper comes along to him and says, "Now, look here; I will give you all of my freight to South America, provided I get a bill of lading that surrenders your immunities under the Hague rules, and you do not give it to anybody else and we keep it under our hats." Mr. HAIGHT. Mr. Edmonds will tell you that violates the present law. Mr. EDMONDS. You do not give him the right to go below this, because that is the minimum. He has to agree to this, whether he wants to or not. Mr. HAIGHT. He has to agree to the rules. Mr. EDMONDS. This is the minimum; he can only give him something better. Mr. EDMONDS. He would not be able to waive these rules; that would be one thing he could not do. * * "" Mr. Laws. Under this section 5, as I read it, it says "A carrier shall be at liberty to surrender in whole or in part all or any of his rights and immunities under this act, provided such surrender shall be embodied in the bill of lading * All right. Now why isn't it possible, under that, for the big shipper to go to the carrier and say, "Now, look here; I have a lot of stuff regularly running and if I get a little better bill of lading than is commonly provided, commonly offered, to other shippers, I will give you all of my freight, and we will just keep that bill of lading under our hats?" Mr. HAIGHT. Of course, that is all easily done to-day. Mr. Laws. I do not know whether it is or not. Mr. PERLMAN. How would that hurt the other shipper? Mr. Laws. It would hurt the other shipper because he can not ship as cheaply. Mr. PERLMAN. The freight charge would be the same; you could not discriminate on that. Mr. LAWS. They may or may not do it. Mr. PERLAMN. All the rights he surrenders are these immunities from liabilities. Mr. LAWS. He can surrender any immunity. Mr. PERLMAN. Only from liability. Mr. Laws. All of his rights. Mr. PERLMAN. What are his rights he can surrender? Mr. LAWS. They are innumerable. Mr. PERLMAN. In so far as freight charges are concerned, what are they? Mr. Laws. I will tell you where it would have an effect upon the meat. It would affect his insurance rate. If he can go to his underwriter with a bill of lading, what is commonly known as an insured bill of lading, a bill of lading waiving all of these various exemptions so-and-so and so-and-so, his underwriter would say "All right; I will give you a very much more reasonable rate, because if anything happens the ship is liable for it and I can have my recourse against the ship.' And he gets an advantage if he can have a bill of lading which is in any wise better than another bill of lading given to the ordinary shipper, and that ought to be protected against in this so that the little fellow has just as much right as the big fellow. I think the clause is all right in spirit. Mr. PERLMAN. How would you change it? Mr. LAWS. I would change it as provided there, that a shipper shall have the right to demand-first, that the shipper and the carrier can agree for the issuance of an insured bill of lading; that any shipper can, so as to make it universal. Mr. PERLMAN. Can not he do it under this bill, now? Mr. Laws. He might. In other words, I would provide that he must do it for everybody, so that it is universal. Mr. BEECHER. You simply say there that the passage of this bill shall constitute a repeal of the discrimination section of the shipping act of 1916, to which I called the attention of the committee this morning, so that your real remedy would be to provide in this act that nothing herein contained shall be deemed to be a repeal of the provisions of section 16 of the shipping act of 1916. Mr. LAWS. That would cover it exactly. Mr. MCGEE. There is only one answer to that situation: That is, if you want to correct such a condition as Mr. Laws points out, that would be to compel the ship owner to advertise the fact he is giving a better bill of lading to somebody else. That is the only way you can ever really correct it. Mr. Laws. I do not care how he does it; I want to prevent any discrimination between the big man and the little man. Mr. CAMPBELL. You do not think this section permits discrimination? It simply says the carrier may issue that bill of lading, but it does not pretend to give him the power to discriminate. Mr. Laws. Yes, it does. Mr. CAMPBELL. No; it gives him the power to issue a bill of lading, but it does not say he may discriminate between one shipper and another, and you have an express statute which says there shall be no discrimination between one shipper and another. Mr. Laws. If it is put in the form of a treaty, I am fairly well convinced that it will do away with that act preventing discrimination. Now, if there is any doubt about it, and we want to make the best bill we can, why not put in here, either what I suggested or what Mr. Beecher suggested, so as to remove all doubt That nothing in this section shall impair in anywise the provisions of the act of 1916. Mr. CAMPBELL. The trouble is the moment you begin to do that, you begin to break away from the uniformity of this document, and that is going to lead you into deep water; you are going to break down every thing you are attempting to do. FURTHER STATEMENT OF MR. F. H. PRICE. Mr. PRICE. I would like to make a few remarks if I may, Mr. Chairman. Some reference has been made by Mr. Heinemann to the interests which the National Industrial Traffic League The CHAIRMAN. Who do you represent? Mr. PRICE. I am speaking now as a member of the Traffic League and a member of its bills of lading committee. Mr. HEINEMANN. Its present bills of lading committee? Mr. PRICE. The old committee on bills of lading-the one which discussed these rules. I speak with no authority from the Traffic League; I speak as a member of it. Mr. Heinemann has filed a letter and given the impression that the Traffic League is opposed to these rules. There have been one or two resolutions adopted by the Traffic League which have the appearance of being opposed to the rules, but subsequent to the adoption of the first resolution I speak of. The committee on bills of lading was asked to take over the draft of the rules and discuss them and then to offer a recommendation to the league for its action. I was a member of that committee, and I called upon the chairman, who was Mr. Heinemann, a number of times to call a meeting of the committee and with no success for a long while. When finally we met only one or two members were there; sometimes four turned up. Mr. CHINDBLOм. How many were there on the committee? Mr. PRICE. How many were there, Mr. Heinemann? Mr. HEINEMANN. I believe there were about six. Mr. PRICE. I do not remember but four being there at one time, and sometimes there were only two or three of us, and at rare internals when we met. These gentlemen had been chosen by the league to represent various sections of the country-the interior, the far West, the far South, the East, and the Middle West-with evidently particular reference to inland railroad transportation matters. They did not know anything about seaboard operation of freight for export; they confessed to me time and again they did not know anything about it. They had never handled a shipment at seaboard, a dock receipt, ship's bill of lading, clearance document, or anything else to the seaboard. They left that to their freight forwarder or their freight contractor. Mr. HEINEMANN. Will you be specific about the term "they?" Mr. PRICE. I mean by "they" the men we met in this committee. Mr. HEINEMANN. Does that include myself? Mr. PRICE. I think so. Mr. HEINEMANN. Did I confess that to you? Mr. PRICE. No; but you never told me you were interested in seaboard matters, and I inferred from your remarks you were not. Did you ever handle a dock receipt or a bill of lading? Mr. HEINEMANN. I think perhaps I have. Mr. PRICE. I am surprised you do not know more about them. Mr. EDMONDS. The only kind of schooners they knew were "prairie" and "beer." [Laughter.] Mr. PRICE. I think so. The railroad companies who bring their freight from the interior, handle it to the seaboard sometimes on export bills of lading; sometimes on domestic bills. In any event the railroad company delivers the freight alongside ship, and there is no gap whatever between the inland bill and the ocean bill under ordinary circumstances. This whole matter of The Hague rules was judged by our committee, when it was judged, purely by the standard of what the railroad company is liable for and what he has to-day in the provisions of the interstate commerce act. The result was, when we met our committee was hopelessly divided; nothing was done; we could make no report to the league. We did try to make two reports, but they were not acted upon and to this date that I know of nothing has been done of a definite sort by the league, because they admit they have not before them the necessary information or necessary reports. In the meanwhile the packers took charge of the league; took charge of our committee. They spent a lot of money: they issued large books of various sorts and sent them broadcast all over the United States as propaganda against these rules, and the only argument we ever heard in our league is the one that you have heard here: they have been the arguments of Mr. Herrick and Mr. Heinemann, of the packers' institute. So that I wish to say on behalf of the league (I was asked to speak to this committee by one of the members of our, committee) that the league has taken no position and can take no position at the present time. I want to say, further, that our league is composed of men who are employed by the traffic association and the employers of labor to look after the details of transportation. Those men are, in the main, perfectly honest, straightforward men. I have never heard until this day any man coming forward and asking Congress to enact a law which enables him to commit a criminal action and charge against the ship. I wish to protest there again that Mr. Heinemann's representation of the league is a minority representation. Mr. BLAND. What is the criminal action? Mr. PRICE. Mr. Heinemann this morning insisted that he be allowed to declare a willful and wrong value on merchandise and to collect from the ship, protesting against that clause of the rules which says that in case he should willfully declare a wrong value or description of the goods he is thereby estopped from collecting anything. I refer not to section Mr. BLAND. What is your business? Mr. PRICE. I represent the Millers National Federation. Our federation is a member of the league and so am I, personally, a member of the league. The flour millers do a very extensive export flour business and most of our men who export are familiar with shipping and familiar with the methods to be adopted to get their freight to the ships and to make out their contracts and bills of lading. Mr. HEINEMANN. Are they located at the seaboard or inland? Mr. PRICE. There are some located at the seaboard; many of them have a branch at the seaboard, and for many of them at interior points. The railroad companies deliver their freight for them to the ship. Mr. HEINEMANN. Where do you have your headquarters? Mr. PRICE. New York. Mt. HEINEMANN. Do you not handle their matters for them? Mr. PRICE. A great many of them. A great many of them who have no seaboard department ask my office to act for them in the matter of clearance and issuing bills of lading when they need a "shipped" bill of lading. Mr. EDMONDS. You have a big depot in Philadelphia? Mr. PRICE. Yes; in Philadelphia. Mr. BLAND. There is some friction between you and the rest of the league, is there not? Mr. PRICE. On this question, there certainly is, sir. Mr. BLAND. I mean otherwise than on this question? Mr. PRICE. No; none whatever, and I beg to say, also, there is no personal feeling in this matter, none whatever. Mr. BLAND. Are you a member of the committee now? Mr. PRICE. No; I am not now. Mr. BLAND. And a new "deal"? There has been a new election of officers. Mr. PRICE. And a new "deal," and I am not on the present committee on bills of lading. Mr. CHINDBLOM. Are the western flour mills members of your association? Mr. PRICE. Yes, sir. Mr. CHINDBLOM. The Chicago, Minneapolis, and Omaha? Mr. PRICE. Yes, sir. Mr. CHINDBLOM. And Kansas City? Mr. PRICE. Yes, sir. FURTHER STATEMENT OF MR. C. B. HEINEMANN. Mr. HEINEMANN. I would like to make a further brief statement, Mr. Chairman. In the first place, I think I made myself clear to the committee, at least, by filing the letter from the National Industrial Traffic League and by explaining that I did not profess to represent the league except as it was outlined in that letter; I do seek to add honor, if honor it might be called. So far as the packers having control of the league is concerned, they have never had control of the league; they have never sought control of it, have not control of it to-day, and moreover, they do not want control of it. It was also stated that I had asked this Congress to enact a law permitting me to perform an unlawful act. Nothing could be further from the truth. I merely asked that the clause be cleared up and explained my reasons for it. We have sought to do nothing unlawful, do not expect to, never have so far as I am aware, and hope I never shall. Speaking to Mr. Haight's remarks, he states the majority should govern. It seems to me that in accepting any vote of the majority and minority standing, those who vote ought to be those who are affected. I am perfectly willing to accept his principle as enunciated, if you will accept the vote of the shippers of this country and the men who will actually pay the freight under these proposed rules. I am not, however, willing to accept the vote of Mr. Haight and his colleagues and those who actually pay no freight in this connection. I think, in our presentation this morning, in the representation which we filed of our organization, that the Southern Livestock Association and the American Farm Bureau Federation will probably roll up a very strong vote if we come down to that basis. Mr. Haight indicated he was assigned the unpleasant duty of educating the American people. That education was to be founded on the textbook which had already been written and brought back by him as an educator, to teach us to like it. The fact that we did not like it was apparently the reason. He mentions the fact of his visit to Cleveland and my subsequent visit. The Cleveland Association, up until yesterday, when I last talked to them, had taken no action approving these rules nor disapproving them. He mentioned the National Manufacturers' Association. That association modified its resolution after our debate and I believe, unless I am mistaken, Congressman Edmonds has received from the representative of that association certain objections to this bill now under consideration. I have a copy of the letter purporting to have been sent to him. The Foreign Trade Council had already gone on record, without a vote of its members, approving these Hague Rules and there was no action taken at the Philadelphia meeting. At the time of the Chamber of Commerce meeting held in Washington last year, they had two group meetings. One was a group meeting addressed by Mr. Haight and myself. That group meeting neither condemned the rules nor approved them. They had a separate group meeting attended by more people as representing the chamber, known as the insurance group, which unanimously adopted a resolution condeming the rules. The action of those two group meetings was referred to the committing handling the resolutions and, notwithstanding the facts which I state, that committee has adopted the resolution mentioned by Mr. Haight. I merely mention those points to illustrate the fact that all has not been plain sailing for this educator. So far as the Hague Rules were concerned, the Illinois Manufacturers' Association registered its views against them. The Michigan Manufacturers' Association first indorsed them and, later, when they were explained to them, they reconsidered and condemned them. Mr. Heinemann, as stated by Mr. Haight, has not been considering this matter for 20 months. We have not considered the Brussels draft for 20 minutes, because we have never had, according to the statement of these representatives, a final copy of the Brussels Rules. I will say to you gentlemen if you will provide me with the necessary copies of the official draft, if and when it is released, I will undertake to distribute it to the men who are actually interested in this thing. If the majority of them are willing to abide by that draft, certainly there will be no effort in our organization to control their decision. We have fought this thing continuously. We did not have any doubt it was going to be brought down here. No matter how many names they apply to us, we feel we have a right to be down here and to make sure the whole thing is fully and fairly understood. FURTHER STATEMENT OF MR. D. ROGER ENGLAR. Mr. ENGLAR. Mr. Heinemann and I are on the same side of the fence, although it might not appear so. We are both interested in getting the best conditions for the shippers. The only difference between us is that Mr. Heinemann belongs to a group who not only want to have a set of rules better than the Harter Act, but they want laws passed which will make the carrier practically an insurer and give him no immunity whatsoever. Now, if I thought there were any reasonable prospect of accomplishing that result, I should not lift a finger to stop it; he would have my entire sympathy, because I happen to be on that side of the fence and naturally I can not oppose any plan by which the carriers would be deprived of any immunity whatever if that were thought wise and fit and thought possible. The difference between us is really only this, that I do not think we can pass a law which deprives the carrier of any immunity. Mr. Heinemann apparently thinks we can; he wants to take away from the carrier the immunity he has under the Harter Act for liability for faults and errors in navigation. I could not oppose that, but I do not think you can do it. The carrier has not had such liability for 30 years in this country, and never had it in most of the other maritime countries. I do not think we can turn the clock back and, for that reason, I do not join Mr. Heinemann and do not sympathize with his point of view. I believe here is something we can get, which is a great improvement over the Harter Act, and I think it will be most unfortunate if we fail to get this by pursuing this "king's" status on the part of the shipper, which I do not think we are ever going to get. But my purpose in bringing this point up was to point out that the packers are really a little differently situated from some of the other shippers and consignees. The packers are well organized; they have their representatives at all points who can look after their interests and, for that reason, it may well be the benefits in this Brussels convention do not appeal to them as much as they do to the smaller shippers and consignees. The packers can possibly see that their claim is filed before the removal of the goods, as they have to do now. If they are shipping packages which are worth more than $100, they can cut them in two, and if they are shipping packages worth less than $100 they can put two packages together. They can so regulate their business, if they want, that they can protect themselves under the present law. But that is not true of the shippers generally. There are a lot of scattered shippers (I have represented hundreds of them; I think I am justified in saying thousands of them) who have no organization; they are absolutely unorganized on this side; there is no one here to speak for them here, really. They do not have a loss, they do not have a claim against the carrier more than once a year and, when they do, they have taken no precautions about it and they are absolutely unprotected under the present law. Now, I think the mistake Mr. Heinemann makes, with all due respect, I think he ought to stop comparing this Brussels convention with that he wants and compare it with what we have now. It seems to me that is the comparison we ought to be governed by. He speaks of deviation; he says he does not want the carrier to make reasonable deviations. Now, if you will just look at the bill of lading we have now you will see the carriers can go to any port or place on or out of the route of the voyage, backwards or forwards, as often as they please. Comparing that with the provision we have in this Brussels convention, you can readily see that the Brussels convention is an enormous improvement over what we have now, and that means a lot to a great many people who, unfortunately, are not being heard here. The same is true of the £100 clause; it will make a lot of difference to the majority of the shippers. The same is true of the burden of proof, which is very largely shifted back on the carrier by these rules, where it belongs. Therefore, while it may be that the packers and some other very large and highly organized shippers can afford to gamble, so to speak, on getting what they want, they can afford to take the chance of losing what they are offered here in the hope of getting all they want, I do not think the great majority of the shippers of this country want to take that gamble. I do not think they want to drop a bone for a shadow, and if they can get what is provided in these rules, with any reasonable interpretationsI am not a stickler for absolute literacy, and as long as you preserve the substance of the rules I think it would be most unfortunate to lose that in the pursuit of something you will never get. Mr. EDMONDS. I have here a letter from the National Association of Manufacturers, which I will place in the record, saying they approve as a practical step forward but not as a final substitute for highly desirable national legislation fortified by an international agreement. |