Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1859-09-23 00:00:00

CUSTOMS

The following let
took place at the meeting

r was read, in reference to what
of the board last week :

Custom-house, I

9th Sept.,
.1859.

SIR,-With reference to -your letter of the 13th instant,
complaining of the inconvenience and loss occasioned to the
dock company and merchants by the board's order, which

masters or mates of importing ships, instead of with the patrol
ollcers, we are directed to inform you that when issuing the
order alluded to, the•board had no intention to interfere with
01. Tvlrwla ir• lutrinh fray nytntis had hPrm allowed to he disrharcrpri

from vessels, or with the. regulations governing the discharge
oZ mixed cargoes into the transit sheds, but simply to revert
to the practice of depositing the landing orders with the
officer of the importing vess( -
goods, as approved by their
which practice no complaint had arisen
The board do not prohibit the landing
packages of free goods before entry when they it

irity to laid the
1851, against

ter, in March,

as heretofore, of

charge of the cargo, upon theundeistanding that such packages
are kept in charge on the quay by the free goods' officer until
the entries are passed. The board further observe that, so far
from having any desire to impede the discharge of cargoes, or
to interfere unnecessarily with the convenience of the dock
company and trade of Liverpool, they are at all times desirous
to afford every proper facility for the expeditious transaction of
their business with the customs' department.—We
your obedient servants. S. PRICE EDWARI

arc, sir,

W. G. STEWART, Comps
- J. COCKSHOTT, I.G.
The Secretary Mersey Dock and Harbour Board.

Mr. BOULT said, as he had made some remarks in
censure of the. Bqard of Customs last week, he felt
bound now to say that he had been guilty of some in-
justice to them, he was afraid. He had got his infor-
mation from the chairman of the Warehouse Committee,
who had told him that what he then stated was the
operation of the order.

The CHAIRMAN said it was the operation of the
order, but not its intention. He supposed the order had
had a wider scope than the Board of Customs had

intended,

Mr. BOULT should be sorry to_ do them injustice.

Mr. MONDEL said one part of that order had struck
his attention ; that was, keeping free goods upon the
quajr till the entries were passed.

The CRAIRMAN—That has always been done : they
must have entries for the goods.
Mr. BoLD—I think it quite right.

Mr. BOULT said, as to the entry of free cargo,3s, there
was a plan proposed about the time of the passing of
the new Customs Bill to make the ships report the
entry, so that there should only be one entry on a free
cargo. He thought it would be a great saving of time
and labour to all parties. The only inconvenience
which it, could possibly cause, would be that the ship-
owner would be obliged to pass the cargoes, and recover
the freight from the consignees. •He could see no
objection to it, and it would be a great facility to trade.

lir. LOCKETT said that project had come before the
Shipowners' Association, but they would not take the
responsibility. There ware certain responsibilities con.
nected with fire insurance and what not, and they would
much rather that the plan of the customs should go on
as it was. •

Mr. Boxy= said there was no responsibility.
Mr. Lociarr begged pardon, there was. If they dis-
charged .the goods, they took upon themselves a certain
responsibility.
Mr. BROCKLEBANK said the difficulty at the time was,
that they could not see their way, it goods were dis-
' the shinswner, to get at the parties; but,
when the shin_

chargeu
he thought, the time had rcatly aril/
owner must be the one consignee of a cargo

The proceedings were then— confirmed,
THE MARINE COMMITTEE

The proceedings of this committee contained nothing
of importance ; and their confirmation having been
moved by Mr. 'Mandel, seconded by Mr. Langlon,
Mr, BOLD said it would be in the recollection of the
board, that two or three weeks ago, he happened to
mention a circumstance as to telegraph messages not
being conveyed in due course to the room, He attended
the subsequent meeting of the Marine Committee but
unfortunately the chairman was not present, and the
question, therefore, was not gone into. He (Mr. Bold)
had been absent since, and might be for two or three
weeks yet. He did. not wish to withdraw one word ;
but he found that the person in fault was not now in the
e nploy
_of the trust ; and he thought it right to the
servants of the trust that he should make that statement.
Mr. MONDEL expressed his obligations to Mr. Bold
for mentioning the matter.. The servant he mentioned
had been dismissed for his irregularities. He had un-
derstood, that Mr. Bold would be away for three weeks
or so—that be intended to cross the Atlantic at that

time.
The proceedings were confirmed.
THE PILOTAGE COMMITTEE

The proceedings of this committee in?laded a recom-
mendation to advance the salary of Mr. Robert P. J.
Simpson, tht General Superintendent, from £2OO to
£250 a year, the same salary received by his prede-
c3ssor. _ _ - _ _

Mr. .LoexErr, in moving the confirmation of the
proceedings, said that the recommendation had arisen
entirely from the merits of the Superintendent, for he
had discharged his duties satisfactorily to the committee,
and to the pilots generally. He was entitled to the
advance, especially as he was prevented from taking any
other duty, whilst his predecessor had large perquisites
from reference fees, &c. His salary came out of the
licensing and fines, and therefore did not fall in any
shape upon the funds of the board.
Mr. ANDenson seconded the motion.
Mr. ROUNTIIWAITE asked if anythinc, had been done
in reference to a letter from the Board of Trade, as to
licensing the masters and mates of coasting steamers
Mr. Locnerr said it was under serious consideration,
and he believed would next Monday be proceeded with.
The minutes were then confirmed.
CoMgiTTEE FOIL MANAGEMENT OF DOCKS AND QUAYS.
A letter from the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway
Company, refusing to pay for the high level coal drops,
had been referred.
In reference to the sinking of the flat Ann, belonging
to the Birkenhead, Lancashire, and Cheshire Junction
Rzilway Company, at the entrance to the Clarence Dock,
the committee had disclaimed all liability.
A letter having been received from Messrs. Chambers
and Wilson, as to an hindrance to docking their ship
White" Sthr, in the Huskisson Dock, on
at he Ist inst., thet
circumstances had been investigated, nd a
passed that the ship was brought to the pier-head by
the pilot or parties in charge, contrary to the express
orders and intentions of the dock master ; and at even-
ing tide had been taken into the basin too late to be
docked.
Mr. Locum moved, and Mr. BOULT seconded, the
confirmation of the proceedings.—Agreed to.

THE VASTER PORTERS' COMMITTEE,

The following correspondence in reference to an
alleged violation of the bye-laws affecting master por-
terage, was then read :--

TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE MKRSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR HOARD,

---
SIRS We are reluctantly compelled to return to the subject
of our charges against Messrs. J. Bibby, Sons, & Co. conse-
quent upon the appropriation by that firm of the Frankfort's
mister porterage.
We have already forwarded to you a detailed report of the

case ; but in the absence of any reference to it at the weekly
meetings of your board, we presumed you entertained the
impression that our letter was a confidential personal comma-

mication

We bring two specific charges against Messrs. John Bibby,
Sons, & Co. To *the first, your solleitor informsas that harannot recommend your interference, so we away infer there-
from that the laws and regulations of your board can at once
be set aside, by the insertion of an opposite clause in Ethe
foreign bias of lading.
To the second, and more serious charge, we have not been
favoured with a reply, although the matter, in our opinion,
(demands your prompt and.decisive interference; and if we are
(enabled to prove that Messrs. J. Bibby, Sons, & Co., have
acted contrary to your laws and requirements, we shall expect
Avon to visit upon them the same punishment that you would
inflict upon less influential offenders.
In the event of our letter of the 31st ultimo not having beet
;placed before you, we herewith enclose a copy, to which we
respectfully, but firmly, .solicit your attention. if we are still
denied the, public • and open investigation which this case
assuredly demands, we ehall consider ourselves justified in
soliciting, through the Press, the opinion of the public UPon
this important commercial question.—We are, sir your obedi-
ent servants, C.IVAiT and GO.
Liverpool, 21st September, 1859.

TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE MERSEY DOCKS AND

R BOARD.

obedience to the request of your secretar
veNed to us in his favour of the 25th instant, we
mit a statement of the circumstances connected witl
refusal of Messrs. J. Bibby, sons, and Co., to grant it
porterage of the Frankfort.
The steamer in question arrived at this port on Sunday, th
14th instant, having amongst her cargo 1,319 quarters of Indiat
corn for our account. The height upon this parcel exeeedec
that paid by any other consignee, and entit'ed us to the
master porterage of the cargo. Oa Monday, the 15th instant
between ten and eleven in ,the forenoon, we accordingly sub-
mitted a written claim for the porterage ; and as Messrs. J.
Bibby:, Sons, & Co. had, upon a former occasion, successfully
resisted our demands in a -similar application, on the ground
that ve had made our claim prier to, instead of the exact hour
suc

'ding, that of the steamer's report,. we avoided a re-
currenee of what we could not kelp regarding as a technical
quibble, by sending in a separate hourly claim for the Frank-
fort, until our right to that extent was admitted. In the

midst of these repeated applications, Messrs. J. Bibby, Sans,
& Co., at about one o'clock the same day, wrote to us, as

. _
folloWs.:— .
" We have received your note of this day, relative to the
Frankforts master porterage. In the absence of any reply as
to whether you really intended doing this master poi terage_c r

not; we had n

s porterage, and on receipt of a note from you
ice send orders down to the dock to hand
but in this case the extra freight

to do it ourselvc

you should do tl
to that effect wi]
the work over to your men

of 15 per cent., due as per bill of lading on your corn must be
paid us on delivery. "(Signed)
"Jolts BIBBY, SONS, & Co."
As we did not recognise the power of Messrs. John Bibby,
Sons, & Co. to nullify the established rules of the port, b

to accept) a printed clause binding consignees to submit to a
penalty of 15 per cent, additional freight if they presumed to
exercise the rights conferred by your board, we replied to their

"After legally establishing our chim to the Frankfort's
porterage, you admit our right, but demand an addition of 15
per cent. upon the freight before you concede it to us. In the

Meantime, without even affording us the opportunity to refust
our demand, we find that you are discharging the steamer oz
count, and in open violation of our right to tho
Against this proceeding we now enter our protest
the steamer to take aceoun'

your own
porterage

of the delivery of cargo. Any interference on• your part will
be at your own risk and responsibility.

" (Signed) "CAVAFY & Co."
In cenformity with the above notice, we sent our man to the
Frankfort; but the servants of Messrs. J. Bibby Sons, & Co.
refused to render him any account of the cargo. Under these
circumstances, feeling that we were unjustly deprived of cur

ight;;;e_conisideyectit our duty to refer the Case 1

You will pl

;erve that the steamer only

Sunday, the 14th instant ; and that our claim for the porterage
and its consequent correspondence, terminating with our letter
to yourself, all transpired on the following day. It cannot,
therefore, be urged that the steamer's discharge was delayed
by our proceedings. We also respectfully direct your particular
attention to the fact that Messrs. J. Bibby, Sons, &Co. commenced
the steamer first thing on Monday morning, five or six hours
before the vessel was reported at the Custom-house • whereas,
by the decis'on of your master-porters' sub-committee, in our
former ease, it is positively illegal for the consignee to claim
the master porterage of a steamer until one hour after such
report. We were thus placed in a dilemma; and whilst Messrs.
J. Bibby, Sons, and Co. were illegally doing the work, we
were helplessly awaiting the prescribed time before we could
legally claim the work which they had previously commenced.
To the best of our knowledge, we have proceeded strictly in
accordance with the rules and regulations of your board ; and
we, therefore, claim your assistance in our efforts to compel
Messrs. J. Bibby, Sons, and Co. to yield to us the proceeds of
the Frankfort's porterage. We also charge Messrs. J. Bibby,
Sons, and Co. with disobedience to your laws in discharging
and acting as master-porters previous to the
port. We believe there is a penalty or for-
- - this offence ; and, in common

the steam

Custom-houie

justice to ourselves and our fellow-consignees, who act as m
ter-porters, we now require the enforcement of such penalt
We leave the question of the legality or otherwise of
pulsory clause in Messrs. J. Bibby, Sons, and Co's fore
of lading, by which they attempt to evade your local
tions, to the consideration of your board, with the best confidence
in your desire and ability to judge the case upon its merits ;
but, irresprective of this point, it is clear that Messrs. J. Bibby,
Sons, and Co. have transgressed your rules by forcibly acting
as master-porters before the qualified consignees have had an
opportunity to submit their claims, and upon this point we
especially solicit your prompt interference.—We are, sir, your

a com-
bills

mast obed
Liverpoc

CAVAFY &

P.S. With

that Tics:
and othe

ference to the bill-lading clause, we may add
‘rns and Maelver, Messrs. Papayanni Brothers,
a-packet proprietors, all stipulate that the
ti is to be done by the steamers' agents; but
conform to your rules, and allow the largest
_...ig,nees to act as master-porters, thus admitting the supe-
rior claims of ycur.local laws over their own regulation.
Mersey -4 I

they invar4.l

,porter

Docks and Harbour Board k -.lcitor'i Department
• _ Liverpool, 15th Sept., 1859.-

GENTLEMEN,-I have noW given -raj, best consideration to
the matter in question between yourselves and Messrs. Bibby
and Co., as to the master-porterage of the Frankfort, arising
upon the introduction by them into the bill of lading of .a pro-
viso, that if the master-porterage be claimed by the consignee
of the goods, an extra freight of 15 per cent, shall be paid.
And I have advised the committee that this is a question
which does not call for nor would justify any interposition on

their part,
It is quite Certain that you are entitled to the master-
porterage, if you claim it; anti that, if you do not claim it, it
will of right devolve upon Messrs. Bibby and Co. as the con-
signees of the ship. As to any circumstances tending either to
induce or to discourage that claim, the committee have nothing
to do with them; all that concerns them is to see that the
master-porterage is discharged either by the largest freight-
payer ; or (in this case), on his refusal of the office, by the con-
signee of the ship. Whether or not, Messrs. Bibby and Co.
have a right to subject you to terms which must make such

refusal on your part necessary, is a question entirely between
them and you.---I am, gentlemen, your very obedient servant,
Messrs. Cavafy and Co. JOHN NORTH.
Liverpool, 15th September, 1859.
Sin,—We have received your favour of this day on the sub-
ject of our charge against Messrs. J. Bibby, Sons, and Co.
The question, as you have construed it, is curtailed and
narrowed from its original point ; and we must, therefore, but
with due respect, take the liberty of dissenting from your
decision.
We have made specific charges against Messrs. J. Bibby,
Sons, and Co.' the proof of which, we believe, will legally dis-
qualify them from acting as master porters. We demanded
an open and public investigation of these charges, axd, as
dock ratepayers conforming to the established usages of the
port, we consider ourselves entitled to a full and open con-
sideration of our complaint.

We still entertain the opinion that Messrs. J. Bibby, Sons, &
Co. have acted most unfairly towards us, in forcibly appro-
priating the Frankfort's master porterage ; and we shall pre-
pare (once more) a detailed report of the whole transaction,
which WC shall furnish to the chairman of your board at the
next weekly meeting.
We desire to know the actual qualifications and disqualifica-
tions of master porters, as defined by the Mersey Docks and
Harbour Board. We care not for the pecuniary bearing of the
question, but, as a matter of principle, we are determined.to
press it to a more definable issue.---We are, sir, your obedient
CAV.IFY & CO.
servants,
John North, Esq., Dock Solicitor.

- -
Mersey Dock and Harbour Board (Solicitor's Department),
Liverpool, 16th September, 1859.
GENTLEXE'N.—I have your letter of yesterday, In reply to
mine of the same date. In writing to you as I did, I was under
the impression (as my letter shows) that your substantial
object m bringing before the board the matters in difference
between Messrs. Bibby and Co. and yourselves, was to ascertain
whether, by the introduction into the bill of lading of a clause
providing for the payment of a larger freight by any consignee
of goods•claiming the master-porterage, Messrs. Bibby and Co.
had, in the opinion of the board, contravened the existing bye-
laws on that subject ; and, therefore, to that question only
I addressed myself.
But I now' understand from your letter that you. still com-
plain of Messrs. Bibby and Co. for having themselves com-
menced the master-porterage, and at too early an hour, not-
withstanding they on the same day offered to give it up to you
on the terms of the bill of lading; and that you contemplate
a further appeal to the board on that part of the subject. In
the meantime it would not, of course, become me to offer any
opinion thereon.
In reply to the last paragraph of your letter, I may say that
the board do not take upon themselves to require other quali-
fications for master-porters than respectable character and
sufficient suretios.—l am, gentlemen, your obedient servant,
(Signed) JOHN NORTH.
Messrs. Cavafy and Co.

Mr. R - said there was one remark made
which ought to be repliedhd to. Messrs. Cavafy appeared
OUISTIMMTE
to think that attention beenrentivd eepn.aeiuds teoonthsiedhe-rlaettiteenr;
He might state that it had
and the matter had been thoroughly and freely gone
into. But this might not be known to them, as
this
smmittee last
the proceedings of the Master Port
week did not come before the board tirlf
week,
gave an appearance of neglect. It was fullycic;n which
site
considered
that Messrs. Bibby, Sons, & Co. had not at a
the bye-laws. With respect to the 15 per ceYi
ad-
ditional charged upon the freight, that was not na
ques-
tion for the committee at all. It was the feeling of the
committee that Messrs. Bibby had acted right.
The CHAIRMAN apprehended that the latter part of
the complaint had not been brought yet before the
Master Porters Committee. They complained that
Messrs. Bibby.& Sons had completed the master porterage
at too early an hour, although they had agreed to give it
up to them. That point would be considered by the
Master Porters' Committee.
Mr. BOULT said, if they had power to alter the bye-
he thought it would be well worth the consideration