Mr. EDMONDS. We do not propose to. We put that in and the bill shall not pass unless that be in it, so far as I am concerned. Now you are through, Mr. Draper, are you not? Mr. DRAPER. Yes, sir. Mr. EDMONDS. Mr. Chandler represents the Merchants Association of New York, and we will let him go ahead. STATEMENT OF MR. WILLIAM H. CHANDLER, MANAGER TRAFFIC BUREAU OF THE MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION OF NEW YORK Mr. CHANDLER. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I shall be very brief, and I expect only to talk to the general principles of this bill. I would like to say that when this discussion first came up under your bill 5080, I was very much opposed to some of the provisions of the bill, and I recommended to the transportation committee and the joint committee, which I will describe, of the Merchants Association, that the deviation clause be amended as shown in your bill. The joint committee of the Merchants Association, which is made up of the members of the maritime committee, transportation committee, foreign trade committee, and the marine insurance committee, met jointly to consider this measure, and we invited before us Mr. Englar; we had Mr. Haight; a representative of the National Industrial League, Mr. Herrick, and others who had taken a position with respect to The Hague Rules, and Judge Hough was also before us by invitation. After hearing all these representatives we had before us, particularly Mr. Campbell, I was convinced that the interests of the shippers would be best protected by the deviation clause as passed by the British Parliament, and I so recommended to our committee. Now, we have on our foreign trade committee some very large importers and exporters. I would be glad to leave with the committee, if it so desires, the membership of these various committees I do not know how many but probably thirty representatives of the Merchants Association. It will give you an idea of just what interests were represented and considered in this bill. (The names submitted for the record by Mr. Chandler are as follows:) FOREIGN TRADE COMMITTEE Lucius R. Eastman, president, the Hills Bros. Co. (chairman), 375 Washington Street; dried fruits. Clement M. Biddle, treasurer, Biddle Purchasing Co., 107 Chambers Street; general merchandise. Maurice Coster, vice president, Westinghouse Electric International Co., 150 Broadway; electrical apparatus. Hon. William H. Douglas, president, Arkell & Douglas (Inc.), 73 Pearl Street. Ernst B. Filsinger, export manager, Lawrence & Co., 24 Thomas Street; cotton piece goods. Frederick D. Herbert, president, Kearfott Engineering Co. (Inc.), 95 Liberty Street. Marc M. Michael, the American Exchange National Bank, 128 Broadway; bankers. C. A. Richards, C. A. Richards (Inc.), 279 Broadway. Henry F. Samstag, Samstag & Hilder Bros., 1200 Broadway. George Ed. Smith, president, Royal Typewriter Co. (Inc.), 316 Broadway. Henry B. Twombly, Esq., Putney, Twombly & Putney, 2 Rector Street. TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE C. S. Keene, director, the American Tobacco Co. (chairman), 111 Fifth Avenue. John F. Fowler, vice president, W. R. Grace & Co., 7 Hanover Square. A. W. Frost, Frost & McNab, 337 Washington Street. Joseph Hodgson, vice president, New York & Cuba Mail Steamship Co., Pier 14, East River. R. S. Stubbs, vice president, American Sugar Refining Co., 117 Wall Street. Alfred H. Swayne, vice president, General Motors Corporation, autos and auto engines, 224 West Fifty-seventh Street. Arthur P. Williams, R. C. Williams & Co., groceries, 56 Hudson Street. MARITIME COMMITTEE George L. Duval, Wessel, Duval & Co. (chairman), 25 Broad Street. Edward J. Barber, president, Barber Steamship Lines (Inc.), 17 Battery Place. William H. Knox, president, Parker, Peebles & Knox (Inc.), 44 Whitehall Street. Alfred Gilbert Smith, president, New York & Cuba Mail Steamship Co., Pier 14, East River. Henry R. Sutphen, vice president, Submarine Boat Corporation, 11 Pine Street. Guy Van Amringe, Esq., Oakes & Van Amringe, 2 Rector Street. MARINE INSURANCE William H. Knox, president, Parker, Peebles & Knox (Inc.), (chairman), 44 Whitehall Street. W. D. Adams, Manutil Corporation, 381 Fourth Avenue. Hendon Chubb, Chubb & Son, 5 South William Street. E. A. de Lima, vice president, Bank of America, 44 Wall Street. Manuel Fano, assistant treasurer, New York & Cuba Mail Steamship Co., Pier 14, East River. Allerton D. Hitch, manager, Hagemeyer Department, William E. Peck & Co., 25 Broad Street. James J. Hoey, Hoey & Ellison, 99 William Street. J. Parker Kirlin, Convers & Kirlin, 27 William Street. W. H. La Boyteaux, president, Johnson & Higgins, 49 Wall Street. William E. Peck, president, William E. Peck & Co. (Inc.), 25 Broad Street. Mr. CHANDLER (continuing). The bill was duplicated and a copy sent to each member of the committee, with an outline of the principal provisions of the bill, before the committee met. After these gentlemen were heard by the Merchants' Association joint committee, an adjournment was taken, further consideration was given to it by members of the committee, and, at a later date, they met in executive session, and came to the conclusion which I will give you. The committee felt that in the diversion matter the shippers would be better protected under a rule which provided that the ship should not deviate unreasonably from its voyage than it would under the specific provisions that you have which were recommended by the National Industrial Traffic League. Now, I hate to come here and take an opposite stand from a lot of shippers, but I am convinced our people were right. Our people have just as much interest in this deviation clause, and have suffered just as much from it-I won't say to as great an extent, but at least to the same extent-as the packers. We have had difficulties with dried fruit coming into this country, just as the packers have had difficulty with those ship ments going to foreign countries, and we have had losses and lawsuits. Now, our people felt this bill, which provides a penalty for violation of any of the provisions of the bill, would cover us fully if the ship was permitted to deviate only in a reasonable way; and my understanding, gleaned from what Judge Hough said, was that the courts of this country have held ships to a very strict accountability on deviation, and, if a ship advertises to go to certain ports and goes to them, it is not a deviation; it is only a deviation when it proceeds out of its regular voyage. And. with that, I will say the Merchants' Association has approved, by the directors of the association, have unqualifiedly indorsed, the language of the British act and recommend that it be substituted for the language you have in the bill now before us, H. R. 11447, and that, I understand, is in conformity with what Mr. Nicolson said yesterday. The second action we took was on the "unit" which we discussed yesterday. Now, it was suggested that the language "declared freight unit" be changed to "ordinary trade unit." I call your attention to the fact that there are a number of commodities sold on one basis in the trade that are shipped on an entirely different basis in the bill of lading. Take copper, for instance: Copper is sold by the pound; it is not shipped by the pound in the bill of lading. There are a number of commodities of that kind, and when you say the "declared freight unit," you have in there something that is declared in the bill of lading upon which the freight is collected. For instance, take grain Mr. LARSEN. How is copper shipped? Mr. CHANDLER. Copper is shipped in this country by the hundred pounds, and, in foreign trade, very frequently, per ton. Brass is shipped, scrap is shipped, per ton. You make your contract and the contract calls for 20 cubic feet, or so much per ton, weight or measurement, at ship's option; so that when you are shipping a ton of copper scrap, you maye ship 40 cubic feet or you may ship 2,240 pounds. I know that to be a fact. So that it seems to me you would have a very much better rule laid down if you used the language "declared freight unit" instead of "declared trade unit," which might be different in different sections. For instance, you will find certain spices, pepper or paprika, are bought and sold in this country per pound, but there are different measures, and the trade unit in one country is not the same as the trade unit in another. I do not believe our people will object if you want to change this, but it seems to me you would get away from a great many difficulties if you would use the language suggested in our amendment, which was recommended by a man who was very familiar with the export and import trade. Mr. HAIGHT. Your change would be, in case of goods not shipped in packages, "per ordinary freight unit? Mr. CHANDLER. No; "per declared freight unit." Mr. HAIGHT. Per declared freight unit. Mr. LARSEN. That is the term that both the shippers and carriers are familiar with, I guess. Mr. CHANDLER. Yes, sir. The bill of lading always states the freight unit, no matter whether it is packages, tons, or barrels, or whatever it may be. And when you come to wheat, your freight unit is usually a quarter, or so many loads. The ship contracts to carry so many loads of wheat. I do not know how many bushels there are in a load, but I know that is the common method of shipping export_grain. Mr. DRAPER. I am not quarreling with you on that point, but just as a matter of information, take hams: Hams are shipped in some States by the ton, yet they are packed in boxes, and the question immediately arises, how much is a ton of hams worth. Mr. CHANDLER. This is not your proposition. This does not apply to anything shipped in packages. Mr. DRAPER. You are dealing with bulk cargo? Mr. CHANDLER. Yes: the suggestion was to substitute, "freight unit" for goods not shipped in packages. Then, on the question of automobiles, you do not take a bill of lading for one automobile, four packages; you take it for four packages of automobile parts. Mr. LARSEN. Mr. Draper, you also objected to the word "unit," too. Mr. DRAPER. Yes, sir. Mr. LARSEN. This is the suggestion for the clarification of the term "unit." 66 Mr. CHANDLER. For the clarification of the term unit." Mr. DRAPER. How would it read now, as you have it? Mr. CHANDLER. Instead of the words " per unit Mr. WHITE. It would read "in an amount exceeding $500 per package or in case of goods not shipped in packages, per declared freight unit." Mr. DRAPER. That meets our objection entirely. Mr. BRAND. Does it cover this case? I know an article that is shipped from our country to all other countries, and it is shipped in four or five different units that I know of, according to the country to which it is being shipped. Mr. CHANDLER. When you say four or five different units, do you mean by that four or five different methods of packing? Mr. BRAND. Oh, no. Mr. CHANDLER. Is it shipped in packages? Mr. BRAND. It is shipped to some countries in a ton of 2,000 pounds; to England, I think, it is shipped in a ton of 2,240 pounds; it is shipped into another country that has a ton of 2.700 pounds; and so on. Now, are we covering what we want? Mr. CHANDLER. How is it packed? Mr. BRAND. Any way it is packed, it is a ton, in the way they speak of it. Mr. HAIGHT. What is it? Mr. BRAND. Currants. Mr. CHANDLER. They are shipped in boxes. Mr. BRAND. It is shipped in boxes of various sizes, but always by the ton. Mr. CHANDLER. But that is package freight always. I know something about the dried-fruit business, because I was in it for nine years. Mr. BRAND. That is always shipped by the package? Mr. CHANDLER. Always shipped by the package. Mr. CHANDLER. The freight rate on all business in the foreign commerce, with some exception, is so much per ton, weight or measurement. That has nothing whatever to do with the method of packing. Of course, the method of packing has something to do with the freight rate. If it is packages of bulky freight, they take it by measurement; if it is in compact packages, they take it by weight. That would not be affected by this language. Now, with respect to the rules as a whole, the merchants' association believes that we should make some progress in endeavoring to get something like uniformity in bills of lading. It is not necessary for me to go into the situation as it exists at present. We have endeavored to look at this thing from a broad standpoint, realizing we could not get everything we want, nor would it be possible to frame a law that would cover every isolated situation that might arise. We feel if we can get something like the interstate commerce act, that lays down general rules of procedure, we will have made a distinct step in advance, and, on that basis, our committee decided to approve these rules, believing they were much better as they are proposed, with the exceptions I have mentioned, than what we have at present; and we are certainly in favor of the provisions that have been added to H. R. 11447, which go beyond The Hague Rules on the recovery for cargo while it is on the dock, after receipt by the ship. There is only one other thing I want to call attention to, which I have noticed since I came down here and upon which the organization has not taken any action, but I am very sure it would be willing for me to point out what seems to be an apparent error in the bill, and that is the use of the language on page 4, line 24, of the word "receipt." Now, in that section, if you will notice No. 6, it relates to the delivery of goods and in the second paragraph, beginning with line 23, it refers to the state of the goods at the time of their receipt. Ordinarily, in shipping language, you speak of the receipt of goods when they are accepted for transportation, and that evidently means delivery, because the language itself relates to the previous language which refers to delivery. I am wondering if Mr. Haight had noticed that, and if he has anything to say on that. Mr. HAIGHT. No. The receipt means by the man accepting delivery; there is no doubt about it. Mr. CHANDLER. I think that is clearly what is intended, and the word "receipt" there, really, it seems to me, should be "delivered,' in order to make clear just what you have in mind. If you mean "delivery," the word " delivery" would make it clear what you mean. Mr. EDMONDS. The originators of English made some mistake, evidently. Mr. CHANDLER. I think so, and I think you will find, throughout the whole business, a little different language. We say "loss of or damage to property." Your bill says "loss or damage to." We speak of loss of property or damage to property. I think that is one of those cases where you used the English diction instead of what we ordinarily use in our own language. Mr. HAIGHT. It was a clause inserted to make more accurate the translation of the French, which had gotten twisted to start with. |