101

A—sa

nßi'oirr ok proceedings ok the conkerence.

reasonable measure of protection which they ought to be entitled to. At present the shipowners are contracted right out of almost every liability. \\ ith regard to a bill of lading which comes to us, I know there is a general complaint about it from end to end of the colony amongst the mercantile community. 1 am disposed to think that if an effort were made to have something like uniformity in the main conditions, it could be done. 1 assume the minor conditions have to be put into different classes. But the representative men connected with commerce in New Zealand have an opinion that they are contracted right out of almost every protection, although they have to pay the freight. Therefore we desire shipowners' responsibilities defined, so that if they want to protect themselves they can be covered in the freight. As at present, the bill of lading is so exhaustive for the protection of the shipowners that the consignee and the shipper might just as well accept every liability. There is scarcely a consignee in New Zealand who is satisfied with the terms of the bill of lading. 'There ought to be somelliing definite, so that the consignees or the shippers can protect both themselves and those with whom they are trading. Now the whole thing is very unsatisfactory. As this is merely a recommendation to the Board of Tradeto endeavour to frame a model bill of lading, I hope it may meet with tin- support of the Conference, and I move the resolution. 1 do not want to take up time unnecessarily by going into details. Mu. NORMAN HILL: I am sorry to have to disagree on behalf of the shipowners, but we believe it is bad business to restrict in any way the liberty of contract cm charter parties and bills of lading. It is impossible to impose on the shipowner full responsibility under all circumstances for the cargo intrusted to him. Sir Joseph Ward has pointed out that it is impossible to make him responsible for perils on the sea. 'The terms upon which a man insures, and the risks which he insures against, are matters of bargain between himself and his underwriter, and we think it has been established by trade all over the world that it is far cheaper to the owners of goods to insure the risks of perils of the sea, and include in that insurance the insurance of the acts and defaults of shipowners, paying a premium to cover all that insurance rather than for the owner of the caigo to insure only the perils of the sea, and to impose on the shipowner the liability for the acts and defaults of his servants, which necessarily results in a higher freight being charged. The point has been tested in many trades as a matter of business. The shipowner offers two forms of bill of lading, one form which assumes all responsibility for the goods, that is to say, besides being the carrier of the goods he is the insurer. The other form says he will carry the goods subject to certain exemptions, and amongst others he exempts himself from liability for the acts and defaults of his servants, and leaves the owner of the goods to effect his own insurance'. The experience all over the woild in our trade has been that the first form is never taken up. It remained a dead form. The owner of the goods has found it cheaper to pay a lower freight on the second form, plus the insurance premium, rather than pay the shipowner for carrying the goods ui,l for insuring them. When yon come to the actual points in which these cases arise, of course, there are cases in which some shipowners have been absolutely unreasonable in repudiating responsibility, and it is those bad cases which provoke what we venture to think is a demand for bad law. You take the ordinary exemptions on the question of seaworthiness at the start of the voyage. The Australian Act imposes full obligation on the shipowner if there is any damage resulting from the ship starting in an unseaworthy condition. Take a vessel sent from here in every respect seaworthy. She is lying in an Australian port, and through gross negligence on the part of her officers and e-rew, the sea communications are left open. That vessel when she begins to take her cargo in the Australian port is unseaworthy, and, as the cargo is put in. the ship settles, and she- finally goes down, or the cargo is seriously damaged. Now, which is it more reasonable si II bear the loss which has been occasioned by that accident the shipowner who is paid according to the weight or measurement of the goods for carrying them to this country, or the underwriter who has insured these goods against the perils of the sea, ami been paid a premium based on the value of the goods? If you impose on the shipowner the responsibility for the goods, in a ease of that kind your freight will be a mixed figure. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I do not suggest that.

Mr. NORMAN HILL: The Australian Act does impose that liability. That, I venture to think, is bad business. Sn: WILLIAM LYNE : It is the law. Mu NORMAN HILL: It is (he law. and it is bad business, we believe. 'This matter is no new matter. It las been debated in the United Kingdom for years. On the Continent, in Germany and France, in every country at some time cn- another there has been a very strong party amongst the merchants to adopt this form of procedure, to introduce either a model bill of lading, or introduce legislative restriction on the freedom of contract. All those have gone, so far as Europe is eon ecineci. At the last Conference held in Europe, it was resolved thai it was in the best interests of trade to leave tin' terms of these contracts to be settled as between the parties, and that is the present position, and beyond doubt it is the feeling in Europe. So far as providing in one bill of lading any one standard form, it is impossible to devise any standard form applicable to all the trades and to all classes of cargoes. For these reasons I would move as an amendment to this motion : "That legislation restricting liberty of contract on charter parties anil bills of killing is unnecessary and undesirable, inas- " much as the ordinary forms of insurance upon goods "having been adapted to meet the well-known exemptions " from liability for the acts and defaults of the shipowners' "servants, protection against loss resulting therefrom can "be more cheaply obtained by the shipper or consignee-, " from the underwriter direct than by forcing a liability " upon the shipowner and thereby increasing the freight." Sir WILLIAM LYNE: I think this matter is very important, and I hope that you will take a division or tain ih. ..pinion of the Committee with reference to it. We have an Act in existence as follows : " Where any " bill of lading or document contains any clause, covenant, "or agreement whereby— (a) the owner, charterer, master, "or agent of any ship, or the ship itself is relieved from liability for loss or damage to goods arising from the " harmful or improper condition of the ship's hold, or " any other part of the ship in which goods are carried, "or arising from negligence, fault or failure in the proper " loading, stowage, custody, care, or delivery of goods " received by them or any of them to be carried in or by the ship; or (b) any obligations of the owner or "charterer of any ship to exercise due diligence, and to "properly man, equip, and supply the ship, to make and "keep the ship seaworthy, and to make and keep the "ship's hold, refrigerating and cool chambers, anil all "other parts of the ship in which goods are carried, lit "and safe tor their reception, carriage, and preservation, "are in any way lessened, weakened, or avoided; or " (e) the obligations of the masters, officers, agents, or ser- " vants of any ship to carefully handle and stow goods, "and to care for. preserve, and properly deliver them. "are in any wise lessened, weakened, or avoided, that "clause, covenant, or agreement shall be illegal, null and "void, and of no effect." That is a clause we have in our Act. One reason why that Act was passed was in connection with ships which bring our fruit and butter— of course, the over-sea ships. We put in a provision, at my instance, that opportunity should be given somewhere on the deck, or at some convenient place for any person sent by the owner of the goods, or the underwriter of the goods to be able to tell at any time by an indicator what the temperature of the freezing chamber was. Shipowners would not tender with that in. That was one reason why this was brought in. Hon. DUGALD THOMSON : That was not the reason for this Bill. Sir WILLIAM LYNE: That was one reason, because 1 had to deal with it. Hon. DUGALD THOMSON : 1 was m the Ministrj I hat passed I his Bill. Sir WILLIAM LYNE : I know that, but that took place before. 'This was a very sore point, and we had to withdraw that from the terms of the contract. 1 always h. Id. and hold now, that every shipowner should allow, if they continued their previous arrangement, the owner of the goods, or the underwriter, full access to see that his goods are not destroyed by negligence- on the part of the officers of the' ship, and they would not do it. They abso hitely refused. We passed this law, throwing the responsibility on the shipowner, and doing away with the neces-