given the shipper as to what the mariner intends to do with his vessel is reasonable. What is not clear to me is what Mr. Draper deems sufficient notice and, with a view of ascertaining, I would like to use a concrete illustration and assume this: Suppose the contract of affreightment is for the transportation of your commodity from New York to Constantinople and so specifies that those two ports are the port of embarkation and the port of termination of voyage, but it contains a clause reading like this, "The right is reserved to the ship to call at any number of named ports in any reasonable order, to load or discharge cargo for the pending or return voyage," would that be a sufficient notice to you that the boat was going to do as it pleased in moving between intermediate ports?

Mr. DRAPER. If the word "geographical" was in there in front of "order." I think it would.

Mr. NICOLSON. That is exactly what I wanted to ascertain. Then it is not a question of notice, Mr. Draper, but it is a question of the ship being operated as you think it ought to be operated. That is the reason I have used this concrete illustration. You think the ship ought not to be permitted to shuttle between ports if it deemed it necessary, but you think that that boat should be made to go in more or less of a straight line and in the geographical order of the ports?

Mr. DRAPER. Under that language that you read.

Mr. NICOLSON. No; you supplemented this language, and I wanted to run it down to find out whether it is a question of notice or a question of having something done in the way you think it ought to be done.

Mr. DRAPER. Not at all. This question of the voyage-in the first place, we would like notice; but we do think it would be highly improper for a vessel going from New York to Constantinople to go to some port in Greece, back to Marseille, around to Lisbon, back down to the north coast of Africa, and then to Constantinople.

Mr. ROBB. I will give you a concrete case: We had a contract to sell a shipment of goods in Sydney, Australia, and booked it with a steamship line operating from New York through the Suez canal. This shipment was to go from Los Angeles. The contract was made and the ship never did go to Los Angeles but went to San Francisco. We inquired as to why that was. They said "We only had 500 tons there and we did not deem it worth while to stop for it," and they went on to Sydney, Australia. We were waiting for the boat; we could not find out where it was. Now that shipment was sold for a certain delivery and the customer is holding us to-day for his loss. That is a concrete case that happened right now.

Mr. DRAPER. I would like to call the committee's attention to another matter in connection with this whole subject of deviation. There has been a lot of comment about the action of the British Parliament in connection with these Hague rules. I have before me a bill of lading issued by the Bibby Line covering a shipment of goods from Liverpool to Rangoon, India. It refers in it to the carriage of goods by sea act and it says:

All the terms, provisions, and conditions of the carriage of goods by sea act, 1924, and the schedule thereto, shall apply to the contract contained in this bill of lading

*

Then you go further over and read the bill of lading, and it says, "Issued in good order and condition, by" and so on, bound for Rangoon, via Marseille and the Suez Canal:

All the exceptions and stipulations in favor of the ship owner contained in this contract shall continue to apply although the vessel may have deviated from the contract voyage and although such deviation may amount to a change or abandonment of voyage, any warranty or rule of law to the contrary notwithstanding

And this is a contract. The British bill has no penalty clause in it, and they can write The Hague rules all over the bill of lading and in the text of the bill itself put anything in, and you can not do anything to them, can not touch them, and so far as uniformity is concerned there is not any uniformity in the British bill.

Mr. BLAND. That is an actual bill of lading you have there? Mr. DRAPER. That is an actual bill of lading of the Bibby Line. Mr. BLAND. I was wondering if there would be objection to having a copy of that go in the record.

Mr. DRAPER. If the committee desires it, I will have this photostated and insert it in the record.

Mr. BLAND. I would like to have a copy of it myself.

Mr. DRAPER. It is not the only line that issues bills of lading of that sort.

Mr. BLAND. I would like to have a copy of it myself, because it looks very much to me, from that bill of lading, as if they say "We will agree to your rules" and then put provisions in to knock them into a cocked hat.

Mr. WHITE. Has not that been the historical attitude of the British toward shipping?

Mr. BLAND. I think so.

Mr. WHITE. What is the use of buncoing ourselves?

Mr. BLAND. I think that has been the way they are dealing with it. Mr. WHITE. It is no use fooling ourselves with the idea any statute England passes, or any treaty England signs, is going to interfere with her shipping trade.

Mr. BLAND. That is issued since the Parliament acted?

Mr. DRAPER. This is issued under the terms of the act of Parliament.

Mr. BRAND. Yet they make deviations as they please?

Mr. DRAPER. They make deviations as they please, and I also call attention to the fact there are thousands and thousands of shippers that use bills of lading; I represent, in this industry, about 300 different meat packing corporations, which are large packing companies, that have able traffic and transportation departments and a staff of lawyers to look after these things, and they are perfectly able to take care of themselves, and I am not speaking for them particularly in this regard, but for the little packer.

Mr. BRAND. I think that throws more light on the situation from the British viewpoint than anything we have had so far.

Mr. SCOTT. Let us see whether it does or not. They are operating under the original language of section 4. The carriage of goods by sea act adopted by the British Parliament carries the exact language that is or was carried in the original section 4.

Mr. DRAPER. Oh, no, sir; I beg your pardon.

Mr. BRAND. It is just the opposite.

Mr. DRAPER. It is just the opposite. This language was devised in the United States and it is not contained in the British act. The British act uses the word "reasonable," which is just the thing we are trying to get away from.

Mr. BRAND. The British act contains the language recommended by the Shipping Board?

Mr. DRAPER. Exactly.

Mr. BLAND. I would like to have a copy of the bill of lading, if it does not go in the record.

}

Mr. DRAPER. I will see that a photostatic copy goes in. (The bill of lading above referred to is as follows:)

LIVERPOOL TO RANGOON, OUTWARD BIBBY LINE

Carriage of goods by sea act, 1924: All the terms, provisions, and conditions of the carriage of goods by sea act, 1924, and the schedule thereto shall apply to the contract contained in this bill of lading and the owners shall be entitled to the benefit of all privileges, rights, and immunities contained in such act and the schedule thereto as if the same were herein specifically incorporated. If any term of this bill of lading is repugnant to or inconsistent with anything in such act or schedule, it shall to the extent of such repugnance or inconsistency, but no further be void.

Shipped, in good order and condition, by lying in the port of Liverpool, and bound for the Suez Canal.

L

on board the S. S... Rangoon, via Marseilles and

All the exceptions and stipulations in favor of the shipowner contained in this contract shall continue to apply although the vessel may have deviated from the contract voyage and although such deviation may amount to a change or abandonment of voyage any warranty or rule of law to the contrary notwithstanding, and for the purpose of this contract all such deviations shall be deemed to be within the contract voyage, with liberty to sail with or without pilots, being marked and numbered as per margin, and to be delivered, subject to the exceptions and conditions hereinafter mentioned, in the like good order and condition from the ship's tackles, where the ship's responsibility shall cease, at the aforesaid port of Rangoon, or so near thereunto as she may safely get, unto or to his or their assigns. Freight for the said goods and primage, together with lighterage (if any), to be paid by the shippers in Liverpool, on delivery of the bills of lading, in cash, without deduction, ship lost or not lost.

The following are the exceptions and conditions above referred to: Weight, measure, quality, condition, quantity, brand, contents, and value unknown. In case the ship shall be prevented from any cause from proceeding in the ordinary course of her voyage, the shipowner has liberty to transship the goods to their destination by any other first-class steamship. The shipowners shall not be liable for loss or damage occasioned by the act of God, the king's enemies, perils of the sea, pirates, robbers or thieves by land or sea, whether on board the ship or not, fire, wheresoever occurring, jettison, barratry of the master or crew, arrest and restraint of princes, rulers, or people, riots, strikes or accidents, or any unforeseen occurrence beyond shipowner's control, explosion, bursting of boilers, or any latent defect in hull, machinery, equipment, tackle, or appurtenances, whether said defect existed before the commencement of or arose or developed during the voyage, breakage of shafts, whether owing to defects of any kind existing, arising, or becoming developed as aforesaid, or however otherwise caused; collisions, stranding, or other accidents of navigation, of whatsoever kind, or arising from the steamer being put into dry dock with cargo on board, heating of other cargo, decay, rust, sweat, leakage, breakage, frost, thaw, rain, spray, vermin, contact with or smell or evaporation from any other goods, effect of climate, or heat of holds, nor for land damage, nor for risk of craft or hulk, shipments, transshipment, stowage, storage on shore, and whether the perils or things above mentioned were occasioned by the negligence or error in judgment of the pilot, master, mariners, stevedores, or servants of the shipowners in the management or navigation of the ship, or any other ships belonging to the company not resulting, however, in any case from want of due diligence by the owners of the ship, or by the ship's husband or manager. The shipowners are not ac

countable for gold, silver, electro plate, bullion, specie, jewelry, precious stones, precious metals, watches, or silk, unless the nature of these goods is specially declared and appropriate freight paid previous to shipment, and the shipowners' liability for such goods is limited to £100 for any one package; nor are they responsible for other goods beyond the extent of £10 per cubic foot or £100 per hundredweight or relatively for any portion thereof lost or damaged, with a maximum of £100 for any one package or relatively for any portion thereof. If chemical or medicinal fluids or any goods of an inflammable, damaging, or dangerous nature are shipped without contents being previously declared and arranged for, they are liable upon discovery to be thrown overboard, and the loss will fall upon the shippers or owners of such fluids or goods, as well as any damage caused to the steamer or any other cargo on board of her, whether shippers shall be aware thereof or not, and whether such shippers shall be principals or agents only. The shipowners are not liable for insufficient packing or strength of packages, or reasonable wear and tear of packages, for inaccuracies, obliteration, or absence of marks, numbers, address, or description of goods shipped, or loss or damage by dust from coaling on the voyage. Fines and expenses, and losses by detention of ship or cargo caused by incorrect marking, or by incomplete or incorrect description of contents or weight, or of any particulars required by the authorities at the port of discharge, upon either the packages or bills of lading, shall be borne by the owners of the goods. In case of quarantine the goods may be discharged into quarantine depot, hulk, or other vessel, as required for the ship's dispatch. Quarantine expenses, upon the goods, of whatever nature or kind shall be borne by the owners of the goods. The shipowners are not to be liable for any damage or detention to goods under through bills of lading where the damage is done or detention occurs whilst the goods are not in the possession of the shipowner. In cases where the ultimate destination at which the shipowners may have engaged to deliver the goods is beyond their port of discharging, they act as forwarding agents only from that port, and in all cases the liability of the shipowners on account of all goods is to cease as soon as the goods are free from the tackles of the ship. The only condition on which glass, china, castings, and other goods of a brittle or fragile nature will be carried is that the shipowners shall not be held liable for breakage howsoever caused. In case of the blockade or interdict of the port of discharge or transshipment, or if the master shall consider it unsafe or unadvisable to proceed to, enter, or discharge cargo in that port, or if the steamer shall be prevented, from any cause whatever, from landing her cargo or any part thereof, whether by reason of war, quarantine, disturbances, strikes, state of the weather, or otherwise, or the consequences thereof, the master may land, discharge, or transship the goods or any part thereof into any depot, ship, hulk, or lazaretto, either at that port or any other port to which the master may think fit to proceed, at the expense and risk of the shipper or consignee of the goods, the shipowners being free from all further responsibility as soon as the goods leave the ship's tackles, and the ship's responsibility shall cease when the goods are so discharged into proper and safe keeping, the master giving immediate notice of the same to the consignee of the goods, so far as they can be ascertained. The shipowners shall have a lien on the goods for payments made, unpaid freight, whether payable in advance at the port of shipment or not, or liabilities incurred in respect of any charges stipulated herein, to be borne by the owners of the goods. Freight on perishable goods to be paid by the shipper or consignee in whatever condition they may be delivered. The goods are to be discharged from the ship as soon as she is ready to unload, and the consignee is hereby bound to receive the same from the ship's side, either on the wharf or into lighters at the ship's option, and in default thereof the master or agent of the ship is to be at liberty to land the same, or, if necessary, to discharge into hulk, lazaretto, or hired lighters at the risk and expense of the consignee of the goods. In case any part of the within goods can not be found during the ship's stay at the port of destination, they are when found to be sent back by first steamer at ship's expense and risk, and shall thereon be received by the consignee. The shipowners shall not be liable for incorrect delivery, unless each package shall have been distinctly marked by the shipper, before shipment, with the name of the port of destination. In case of damage, loss, or nondelivery, the owners of the steamer are not to be liable for more than the invoice value of the 30421--25--11

goods. Freight, when payable by the consignees, to be paid at current rate of exchange for banker's bills at sight on London, and is due on the arrival of the goods at place of destination in exchange for delivery order. To carry goods of all kinds, whether on deck or under deck and whether dangerous or otherwise. Average payable according to York-Antwerp rules. This contract shall be governed by the law of the flag of the vessel carrying the goods (except that general average shall be adjusted as above-mentioned).

In witness whereof, the master or agent of the said ship has signed bills of lading, exclusive of the master's copy, all of this tenor and date, one of which being accomplished the others to stand void.

Caution: Shippers are cautioned against shipping goods of a dangerous or damaging nature, as by so doing they become responsible for all consequential damage, and also render themselves liable to penalties imposed by statute.

War risks: The ship, in addition to any liberties expressed or implied in this bill of lading, shall have liberty to comply with any orders or directions as to departure, arrival, routes, ports of call, stoppages, or otherwise, howsoever given by His Majesty's Government or any department thereof, or any person acting or purporting to act with the authority of His Majesty, or of His Majesty's Government or of any department thereof, or by any committee or person having, under the terms of the war risks' insurance on the ship, the right to give such orders or directions, and nothing done or not done by reason of any such orders or directions shall be deemed a deviation. The shipowners have liberty to change the route at any time or stage of the voyage, to keep steamer in port or to put into and remain at any port should circumstances in their opinion or in the opinion of the master render this advisable.

In the event of the steamer or steamers being requisitioned for government service any contract of carriage to be null and void, and no liability to attach to shipowners for any consequences arising therefrom.

Mr. EDMONDS. They are acting under the special conditions of Article VI of the treaty.

Mr. HAIGHT. When that bill was issued, The Hague Rules were not binding in Great Britain at all.

Mr. DRAPER. Yes, sir.

Mr. HAIGHT. They did not become effective until January 1.

Mr. DRAPER. Yes, sir; this is issued under the carriage of goods by sea act, 1924, and that is The Hague Rules act.

Mr. NICOLSON. Mr. Draper, was that bill of lading issued when the British act was in effect?

Mr. BLAND. What is the date of the bill of lading?

Mr. DRAPER. There is no date on the bill of lading, but I believe it was procured by our agent in Liverpool on or about the 1st or 2d of January. It was shortly after the 1st of January, because we have just received it.

Mr. NICOLSON. It is apparent to you the bill of lading has no merit whatever as an illustration unless it was issued subject to and under the British act.

Mr. DRAPER. This bill of lading was issued on the 1st day of January, after the British act had become effective.

Mr. NICOLSON. Is the bill of lading dated?

Mr. DRAPER. No, sir; but it was procured on the 1st day of January by our agent.

Mr. NICOLSON. That is a very different proposition, Mr. Draper. It might have been issued on November 25 and your agent procurred it on January 2. The point is what is the date of issue of the bill of lading.

Mr. BRAND. Is that language in the bill of lading, or did you insert that?