Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1859-09-30 00:00:00

Customs. The interest of the consignee, and of the
shipper, was not always identical ; and, therefore,
difficulties must necessarily arise. Now, as to the bill of
lading, the board had nothing to do with it ; and their
solicitor, he thought, had very properly declined to
involve the board in any litigation upon that subject.
This was, no doubt, a wise—at all events, it was a safe
course ; but he, not being a lawyer, would express his
opinionthat no terms imposed by the shipper in a foreign
port could be binding., or set at naught the.laws
country to which the ship proceeds to discharge her
cargo. (Hear, hear.) Now it seemed that in this
case the Frankfort, the steamer in question ,arrived on
a Sunday ; and Messrs. Cavafy and Co., as the largest
consignees, claimed the master-porterage on Monday
morning ; but it seemed that Messrs. Bibby and. Co, had
commenced unloading the ship before Messrs. Cavafy
and Co. could legally put in their. claim. There was
some difference between the parties as to the time ;,but,
as the general facts were admitted, this was of no con-
sequence. It appeared that Messrs. Bibby and Co.,
about twelve o'clock on Monday, wished to give up the
master-porterage to Messrs. Cavafy, and offered to give
up all the profits which they had made by undertaking
the Work. This the committee had considered an ex-
tenuating circumstance ; but they still demanded the 15
per cent., and this Messrs. Cavafy and Co. had refused to
accede to, and bad then appealed to the boar& Now
there, he thong,ht, Messrs. Cavafy and Co. had committed
an • error. Ile thought they should have accepted
the master-porterage, and submitted under pro-
test to Messrs. Bibby's claim. If the claim was
illegal, they would have had their remedy ; and if
they had gone to their solicitor, they would have had
a more substantial remedy than by applying to the
board, though he believed the parties were quite justi-
fiable in bringing the case before them. Now he was
willing to admit that neither the general law nor the
bye-laws relating to master porterage were in the most
satisfactory "condition ;—(hear)—and he had almost
brought his mind to the conclusion to recommend that
the master porterage be given at all times to the con-
signee of the ship ; but there were objections, and that
was a question which deserved serious consideration.
However, on the present poict, there could be no doubt
that Messrs. Cavafy and Co. had a .proper claim to the,
master porterage of the ship; and Messrs. Bibby and.
Co. were not justified in taking possession of it. Still,
there were extenuating circumstances in the case, and
his colleagues were of opinion that it was not
a case for any extreme measures, or for any marked or
severe notice,—and he had very reluctantly, he must
say, and not without some hesitation, yielded to their
views, and come to the same conclusion. They had,
therefore, resolved to make the report which had just
been read ; and he begged to move the confirmation of
the proceedings.
Mr. SEGAR seconded the motion. He did not alto-
gether concur in Mr. Arnold's views, but he had ex-
plained the circumstances of the case as well as could be.
Mr. Boum' could .state, for the: information of Mr.
Arnold, that the owners of steam-ships were not the
only parties who found the inconvenience and delay
arising from the present bye-law respecting master-
porters, which was so serious as to have led to the intro-
duction 'of the stipulations (about 15 per cent.) which
had been referred to. He thought he would
find that the New York line of packet-ships had
a similar clause, the desire being that the con-
signee of the ship should be master-porter in all
cases.. In confirmation of what he had said upon
this subject, at the last board, everybody would see that
they were in some little 'difficulty in the mattes.
If they gave the porterage, as at present, to the largest
consignee of cargo, they gave it to the man who had
the greatest interest in delaying the ship. If they gave
it to the consignee of the ship, it was his interest to
hurry matters, and he might in some cases over-hurry;
but he thought it would be mush easier and better to put
a drag upon.him' than it would-be to stimulate due dili-
gene,e on the partof the other. He considered it was their
'duty to lean to the side of despatch, and not of delay.
Mr. Irsm.vs would like to make a few remarks, be-
cause he thought that the fact of Messrs. Bibby ,
and Co. having infringed their bye-laws, had placed
them in a different position than if the case was
coming before theM new ; and he could not but
think, when a month ago they were complaining of
the Customs throwing difficulties in the way of dis-
charge, they, by their system of master-porterage, threw
impediments in the way of the Customs. (Hear.) Some
time ago, upon a special application to the Lords of the
Treasury, in which he himself took part, it was agreed
that steam vessels under peculiar circumstances, arriving
on a Sunday, should have h right to commence to dis-
charge at six or seven o'clock on Monday morn-
ing, proper caution being taken ; and this, although
by ,the techicality of their bye-law, they could not claim
the master-porterage till an hour after they had reported
at the Customs'-house. • In this case the cargo was grain
in bulk, and according to their law of master-porterage,
the bushelling commences in the hold of the steamer.
This made Messrs. Bibby and Co. commence in the hold;
but if this had been a cargo of cotton, the case would
have been different: He thought Messrs. Bibby and
co. had broke the bye-law in technicality, but not in
spirit ; and he was sure the board would wish to see
carried out whatever would conduce to the despatch of

business

Mr. ARNOLD said he admitted much of what Mr.
Inman had remarked ; and as he was a member of the
committee, he should be glad if he would give his atten-
tion-to the subject of a change of the bye-laws, which
he belie;ied would have been done before, but for his

• . .
own sickness. He believed the present system was not
suitable to the trade of the port; as now carried on ; but
in themeantime,_he niaintamed, they must enforce the

law, and uphold it as now is.
The CUAIRINIA.i supposed that the Chairman ,of the
Master,Porters' Committee would take this, matter into

both sides of th(

s not worth 'while to enter upon the

Yct are only dealihg

with -Messrs

Bibby and Co's case, now
The CuAinxlAN-Just

• Mr. ANDERSON thou.-ht the security given by master
porters should also be taken into consideration..
_ _

The CILAIRmAx---:-The security is fixed by statue. We
eanuot alter that bye-law.

The subject then dropped.
B.EvlstoN or 11.&1113011TR, DUES

The NAUMAN said that, yesterday., he had met Lord
Stanley, the chairman of quarter sessions for this part
of Lancashire; Mr.Townshend, chairman of the Cheshire
quarter sessions; and, in conforMity with the require-
ments of the act, they had proceeded to revise the
harbour rAtes,payable to the board, when.tlsis resolution
had been passed-:—" That the said revisors, having
perused and examined the accounts required by the
2,43 rd section of the said- act, and having fully 'considered
the 'premises, are of opinion and'do order and determine,
that for the next three years now next ensuing, or until
the next earier revision thereof, the harbour rates shall
'continup7to be levied and collected according to the same
proportionate scale or rate of Charge as was antharised
to be received And taken- at-the last triennial revision
thereof, on the 22nd of Oetober; 1856.

" STANLEY.
" CTIARLES TURNER.
"LEE P. TOWNSIIEND."

The chairman then reminded members that the board,
at its next meeting, would have to determine by lot the
rotation by which memberPshould gO out of office. It
was agreed that this should be done at the first meeting
in October.
This concluded the public business, and the Reporters
retired. - '

THE CHESHIRE VOLUNTEER RlFLES.—Commissions
signed by the Lord Lieutenant of the county :-sth
Company of Cheshire Volunteer Rifles—Sir Charles
Watkin Shakerley, Bart., to be captain ; Francis Henry
Randle Wilbraham, Esq., to be lieutenant; Arthur
Isaite Sony, Esq., to he ensign.
THE BALLOT AND PURITY OF ELECTION IN :THE
UNITED W
STATES.— e have been favoured with the
friends in this neighbourhood, fol-
lowing extract from a p
fotrieorm, just
a„
i,roheuicisiegi
settler
by
ni s
made Tuscola,the Douglascounty
--stutuoitji'Douglass:County abPoirteeiwghast,
weeks ego.' There was
.great rivalry between it and
Arcola (a place about eight Miles south). between
was
determined to gain iheliction, and therefore polled'
about three times the legal number of ,{6tes. The.
Tuscola men, however, had got wind of what was going
to take place, and determined ROt to loose the county
seat in this manner ; so,' on the day of the poll, every
one of them voted at least four times, and Tuscola came.
out a head, having beaten the Arcola men at their own
game. Hurrah for the ballot ! It is just as easy to
deposit four votes—rolled up small—as to sit one.
This election was, I suppose, the most scandalous affair
in that line that ever occurred in America; and Tuicola
is noted throughout the Union ler its election tactics."
Manchester Guardian.