For amendment proposed by France-Holland and France. Germany voted in favor of the amendment moved by France, with the addition of a one-year limitation, as moved by Sweden. The individual differences of opinion thus revealed were such that your committee determined to present the foregoing history of our deliberations to the conference, leaving decision to a plenary session after an opportunity, desired by at least some of our members, of consulting with their fellow nationals. Article III, 8: Discussion of this section, especially in connection with Article III, 3, led to a request for the formulation by the chairman of the following opinion, which was accepted and which we now especially request to be included in the Rapport de la Conférence: "In respect of Article III, 8, it is the opinion of the chairman and was the opinion of those participating in discussion at the London meeting of the Comité Maritime of this section and of Article III, 3, that the result is: If a shipowner 'has no reasonable means of checking' cargo by him received, he may still use such phrases as 'about,' 'more or less,' 'weight, quantity, and number unknown' in qualification of statements of the bill of lading; but if the shipowner has in fact reasonable means of checking, he must issue a bill of lading giving quantity, etc., without modifying phrases. "If by inadvertence or mistake the shipowner issues a bill of lading for more than he actually receives without any modifying phrases, he is absolutely bound to the exact quantity, etc., of his bill to every bona fide holder for value of the erroneous bill of lading. "In practice, when modifying or indefinite phrases are used, and where there is an apparent "short delivery," evidence is ordinarily taken as to the usual variance in outturn in the trade concerned; if the variance is greater than usual, the shipowners must pay for what exceeds the expected limit of variance.' Article IV, 1: At the suggestion of Sweden, concurred in by all, it is noted as the opinion of the committee that this section is intended to apply, and does apply merely, to unseaworthiness as defined or described in Article III, 1 (a), (b), and (c), and confines the obligation of due diligence to the beginning of the voyage. Article IV, 2 and 3: Holland, Sweden, and Germany unite in moving that the enumeration of specific exemptions contained in this section, except (a), be suppressed, and the subject covered by one reciprocal exemption, releasing both shipper and shipowner from losses or damage arising or resulting from causes not the act, fault, or neglect of one of the contracting parties, his agents or servants. After discussion, the motion was opposed by Great Britain, Belgium, France, and the United States, and so not carried. Article IV, 2 (a): Sweden moves to substitute for the word "administration" (management) in this section other and more specific phrases. As the matter was one of principle, it was not necessary to frame such phrases; and after discussion it was resolved by the votes of Great Britain, France, Holland, Germany, Belgium, and the United States to adhere to the text of the projet. Article IV, 2 (b): Moved by the United States, and unanimously agreed to, that this subsection be changed to read: "Fire, unless caused by the actual fault or privity of the carrier." Article IV, 2 (m): Moved by France, and unanimously agreed to, that this subsection be changed to read: "Wastage in bulk or weight, or any other loss or damage arising from inherent defect, quality, or vice of the goods.' Article IV, 4: After discussion of this section the committee agreed it to be the intent of the text that even if shipper and shipowner specifically agree upon possible deviation to a specific port, and express that agreement in the bill of lading, it remains possible for a party to complain in a court of law that what had been agreed to was an unreasonable deviation. Thereupon the United States offered the following as a substitute for the section: "Any deviation in saving or attempting to save life or property at sea, any deviation to ports or places specifically stated in the contract of carriage, and any deviation reasonable, having regard to the service in which the ship is engaged, shall not be deemed infringements or breaches of these rules or of the contract of carriage; and the carrier shall not be liable for any loss or damage resulting therefrom." This amendment was carried by the votes of France, Germany, Holland, Sweden, and the United States. Contra: Great Britain and Belgium. Article IV, 5: After discussion of the points presented by this section, it was on motion of France and the United States, unanimously agreed that if the text of the projet remained in substance, the last sentence thereof should be changed to read: "The declaration made by the shipper as to the nature and value of any goods declared, if embodied in the bill of lading, shall be prima facie evidence; but shall not be binding or conclusive on the carrier." Holland then moved, that if the text of the projet remained in substance as now amended, the words or figures £100 be changed to $100. This motion was denied by the votes of all the nations represented, except France, whose delegate refused to vote on the ground that he had personally, however unwilling, given consent to the higher amount. The United States then moved to substitute for the first and second alineas of the section (leaving the third alinea remaining as first above amended) the following: "Neither the carrier nor the ship shall in any event be or become liable for any loss or damage to or in connection with goods in an amount exceeding £100 per package or unit, or the equivalent of that sum in other currency; unless the nature and value of such goods have been declared by the shipper before shipment and inserted in the bill of lading. "By agreement between the carrier, master or agent of the carrier, and the shipper a maximum amount other than that mentioned in this paragraph may be fixed; provided that such maximum be not less than £100 or its equivalent.' This motion was agreed to without dissenting vote; leaving, however, for discussion the method of payment in currencies other than that of Great Britain; a question acutely presented by the words "£100 per package or unit, or the equivalent of that sum in other currency.' Your committee are agreed that the words of the text mean payment (say) of a sum equivalent to £100 at the rate of exchange current on the lawful date of settlement at the place of settlement. Sweden moved that the section be amended so as to express the thought that the (for example) £100 to be paid shall be one hundred gold sovereigns, to be translated into foreign or other currencies as so many gold coins of an equivalent bullion value. France moved that in place of the phrase "in other currencies," there be inserted words which would produce the following reading: "£100 per package or unit, or the equivalent thereof in the currency at par value in which the freight is expressed.' A vote being taken, the text as amended without dissent was upheld by Great Britain, Holland, Belgium, and the United States. For the motion of Sweden-Germany and Sweden. For the motion of France-France. Article IV, 6: Upon motion of France it is unanimously agreed that the word "sciemment" is properly translated "knowingly," and further that "knowingly" is a more appropriate word, regarding only the English version, which should be amended accordingly. Sweden thereupon moved to omit this section, on the ground that it suggested matter more suitable for a criminal proceeding, and out of place in a set of commercial rules. Further, because it seems to invalidate a bill of lading in the hands of a bona fide purchaser of the bill for value. Discussion led the committee to agree that it is the intent of the text to wholly avoid the bill of lading in respect of statements as to nature or value of goods, if the statement of the bill were knowingly induced by the fraud of the shipper. This motion was supported by Sweden and Germany, and being opposed by the other nations represented, was not approved. Article IV, 7: It was unanimously agreed that the first line of this section should be amended to read: "Les marchandises de nature inflammable, explosives ou dangereuse.” Article V: Upon motion of France and the United States, unanimously agreed that the second sentence of this article be stricken out and the following be substituted: "Aucune disposition de la présente convention ne s'applique aux chartesparties; mais si des connaissements sont émis dans le cas d'un navire sous l'empire d'une charte-partie, ils sont soumis aux termes de la présente convention." Further, that there be added to the article the following: "Nothing in these rules shall be held to prevent insertion in a bill of lading of any lawful provision regarding general average.' The foregoing statement of our proceedings shows that in matter of detail we find little to criticize in the projet. It was originally drawn in English, and it is our opinion that the French text will require verbal revision in addition to the points of substance covered by this report. The question of first importance, however, is whether the projet presents a scheme of commercial regulation per se desirable. Considering the wide and increasing use of bills of lading as documents of title, their constant transfer as symbols for the goods themselves, and particularly their increasing use as a means of obtaining advances from banking institutions, we respectfully urge upon the conference the importance of internationally regulating an international matter. We observe as points of merit that this projet carefully confines the scope of the proposed rules to the period from loading to discharge, leaving to open contract and to local law the regulation of relations between carrier and shipper prior to loading and subsequent to discharge. It is also a point of advantage that any attempt to regulate the terms of charter parties is carefully avoided, while at the same time the issuance of negotiable bills of lading under charter parties is assimilated to that of other bills. As our report shows, the only matter of business or practice as to which we have seriously differed relates to the vexed question of loss or damage to cargo and payment for the same. Whether these difficulties will prove insuperable must depend upon the desire of all the nations to compromise something which has long distressed the business men of every nation. For ourselves, speaking at the moment not as the mouthpieces of our several Governments, but as men of affairs and of law, expressing our individual opinion, we think that this projet, with the emendations proposed by us, excellently embodies a workable international business scheme, and we express the hope that it will also be found to be a workable and practical legal scheme in all the maritime countries of the world. We submit our labors to the conference in a spirit of confidence, while expressly directing its attention: 1. To the difficulties we have experienced in the matter of claims for loss or damage; and 2. To such legal difficulties as may be shown to exist in the present jurisprudence of nations not represented in our committee. Exhibits F, G, H, and 1, relating to the limitations of the liabilities of the owners of seagoing vessels and to maritime mortages and liens and not to the rules relating to the carriage of goods by sea are not printed. APPENDIX RECOMMENDED DRAFTS OF CONVENTIONS PROTOCOL 1 The International Conference on Maritime Law held its fifth session at Brussels on October 17-26, 1922. The Governments were represented at the conference by the following delegates: GERMANY M. le Dr. Landsberg, envoyé extraordinaire et ministre plénipotentiaire, chargé d'affaires d'allemagne à Bruxelles; M. le Dr. Struckmann, président de chambre à la cour suprême d'empire; M. le Dr. Rambke, conseiller à la cour d'appel, attaché au ministère de la justice. THE ARGENTINE S. Exc. M. A. Blancas, ministre de la République Argentine à Bruxelles. BELGIUM *M. L. Franck, ministre des colonies, président du comité maritime international; *M. A. Le Jeune, sénateur, vice president du comité maritime international; *M. F. Sohr, docteur en droit, secrétaire général du comité maritime international, professeur à l'Université de Bruxelles. CHILE M. Luis Fidel Yañez, chargé d'affaires a. i. du Chili à Bruxelles. CUBA M. le Dr. Rodolfo Rodriguez de Armas. DENMARK *M. K. Sindballe, professeur à la faculté de droit de l'Université de Copenhague; M. Christian Cloos, consul de Belgique à Frederickshaven. SPAIN M. Lorenzo Benito, professeur de droit commercial à l'Université de Madrid; M. José Fessez, chef de bureau au ministère de la justice; M. José Tapia Casanova, auditeur général de la marine. ESTHONIA M. Ilmar Tannebaum, conseiller juridique de l'administration générale de la navigation. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA *M. le Juge Charles Hough, président de l'association américaine de droit maritime; *M. Norman Beecher, conseiller d'amirauté au shipping board. FINLAND M. G. A. de Gripenberg, chargé d'affaires a. i. de Finlande. 1 An asterisk before the name of a delagate indicates that he was also a delegate to the meeting of the Comité Maritime International, held at London, October 9-11, 1922. FRANCE S. Exc. M. P. de Margerie, ambassadeur de France; M. Lyon-Caen, membre de l'institut, professeur à la faculté de droit de Paris; *M. de Rousiers, secrétaire général du comité central des armateurs de France; M. Georges Ripert, professeur à la faculté de droit de Paris. GREAT BRITAIN *Sir Leslie Scott, K. C., M. P., His Majesty's solicitor general; Sir Hubert Llewellyn Smith, G. C. B., chief economic adviser of His Majesty's Government; The Hon. Hugh Godley, of the office of the parliamentary counsel; *M. G. P. Langton, avocat, secrétaire général du comité maritime international. HUNGARY M. le comte Olivier Woracziczky, chargé d'affaires de Hongrie; M. C. Torok, consul de Hongrie à Bruxelles. ITALY *M. Francesco Berlingieri, avocat, professeur de droit maritime à l'Université de Gênes. JAPAN Vicomte Mushakoji, chargé d'affaires a. i. du Japon à Bruxelles; LATVIA M. Germain Albat, professeur de droit international à l'Université de Riga, sous secrétaire d'etat au ministère des affaires etrangères. NORWAY *M. E. Alten, secrétaire général du ministère de la justice. M. Gustav Henriksen, directeur d'armement. NETHERLANDS S. Exc. le Jonkheer van Vredenburgh, ministre des pays-bas à Bruxelles; *M. B. C.-J. Loder, président de la cour de justice internationale; M. W.-L.-P.-A. Molengraff, professeur à l'Université d'Utrecht; *M. C. D. Asser, avocat à Amsterdam; *M. G. van Slooten, conseiller à la cour d'appel, à La Haye. POLAND Jean Namitkiewicz, professeur à l'Université de Varsovie, juge auprès du tribunal d'appel, membre du tribunal mixte polonoallemand. PORTUGAL S. Exc. M. Alves da Veiga, ministre de Portugal à Bruxelles. RUMANIA S. Exc. M. Henri Catargi, ministre de Roumanie à Bruxelles. KINGDOM OF THE SERBS, CROATS, AND SLOVENES M. Milorad Straznicky, docteur en droit, professeur à la faculté de droit de Zagreb; M. Ante Verona, docteur en droit, conseiller à la cour de cassation de Zagreb. |