The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1851-03-06
there nigh, be some reasons for saying that we should
undstteks by law 20 dseb pgs party from the ool'xa

depend upon he Terms OF he chaieron The terms OF The
bin Of iadiug When merchant reeves g goods o,
form AZ he chooses and party who loads the goods IL
willing 10 accept; ard he may introduce wha, ptosls-
IONS s, EXCEPTIONS he pleases into the bill OF laiBe
Now. we ali that III point Of Tact in England sise'
the decision OF case OF some ceebrity-ihe OF
Smith Shsphrtdz-ln wh,sh The sop99p law was sup
made for the dangers Of the navigation OF the
rivers Tor dangers Of which they could not be eop-
veIssDt. and, against which they could guard, be
cause. a. Lord Mansfield said there was nice d,stnc-
ton between the act OF God and unavoidable acci-
dent and. though discharged from the liability Tor the
iorneT the carrier liable for the latterwe know
that, in consequence OF this decision The shp-owners,
having become alarmed theIeupon introduced new se'
OF exceptions into their bills OF adng and u 10
clear that in EDKand the liability OF the parry uepenu
now upon the exceptions in that bill oil iad,hg ieh
nevertheless these OF Parliament TO when au'on
has been made here operation now' anu. 90 la
"a thew apply they do actually override the exceptions n
the bill OF lading, and exempt pdfues ~ oa "
the exceptions in the bill OF ladng DO no, now ea.sna
Nov Air am al a loss to understand upon wnat prin.
c;r ~ i'm Or propriey Congress should undertake 10
detsrmne for what accidents or losses party shall De
reasonable who has made written agreement and ~
that written agreement il is stipulated how he shall be
saved from loss and for what he shall be responsible
II this bill had been confined IN terms to the cases Of
goods which might be shipped without bill OF lading
defining what should be the Implied contract by law
while there express agreement mitigating the
srngency Of the common law rule of liability, there
would have been less for objection TO IT, But is
in terms an express, unequivocal exemption OF ship
from liability for losses in all the instances spec
ned that papeT-l am speaking now OF losses or IN
jures there referred ioand makes the acl OF Congress
the rule instead OF the contract OF the party Now,
have understood, reason for the imposition OF this
provision, that of the courts in the city OF New
York have decided that a ship owner introduce
exception into his bill oil ladIng by which he would be
relieved from the full extent OF the common law in rel,
ercnce TO carriers have seen such case and
am not prepared to believe that there Is such case
al all events, il no, the law 1t may be decided in
MI BRADBURY If the honorable senator will give
way will state what the law is. understand the de-
cision Of the courts is that il is competent for a
common carrier, by express agreement signed by the
other party TO restrict bis liability but that il is moi
competent for him 10 restrict such liability by his
actsuch, for instance, incorporating exception in
the bill Of adng He may restrict his liability the bill
Of aSng there an express assent 10 i on the part Of
the other party This understand TO be the principle
But this is often impraccable Bills of lading fire.
qaenty left TO be forwarded after the vessel sails To
show the strlctness OF the rule required by the courts
will read an extract from the opinion of the Supreme
Court Of the United States in the case Of the New Jersey
Steam Navigation Company ps the Merchants Bank,
(oth Howard's ReportsD
A question has been made whether il is competent for
the carrier his oblp alton by speca
Could and Others y. Hill otsers q Him. sasj ard the
Nowisa. Is Wsna s.o; aud Cole Goodwin j.,
1.-THE fish, thus to restrict the obligation is admed in
parties, where the exception common law liability
tosher ihan that OF inevitable accdenp has been
stipulation Of me parties The right of The
limit his liability IN the shipment Ut goods has, think
mover been doubted. But, admitting the light thus to
se. his obligation II by no means follows that be do
20 any act Of his own He's IN the exercise ola OF
public Office asd has pubic duties perform, flom which
he should not be permited exonerae himself without
i@aled inferred from gene The public lin
itng his obligation, which may or may NOT be assented
Che burden of proof lies the carrier, and nothing
bort of an srpsn Hipuafion by paro rritng should
permit.si 10 discharge him from due, which law
depend upon implication or infer.
encs, ioanded doubtful and conflicting evidence, bu,
should be specific and certain leaving Tor
veFsv between the parties "
Mr., BADGER. suppose that that case expresses ex
actiy what understand OF course master canno,
make Any bill o. sdng 50 e to institute contract be-
mnSt be accepted and we all know that if if accepted
then II becomes contract between the. parties The
and BY the accepting Of By the OTHER party every re-
strction upon the liability Of the carrier expressed thar
bill q dng is thereby agreed to BY the shipper Of the
ton about thai However, | am not going into thai
question III like every other II bill OF ladng
Is dsn up and presented and accepted by the party
he becomes Of bound by the stipulation 80 far as
!! Restraints has rights against the party who makes it
But Il matter OF very little importance TO what was
about 70 suggest whether this power OF restricting habit
This bill il wrong in any event If, as the law now
stands, is with the shpowner to say whether he will
accept goods upon the general liability OF the carrier u
der The DID, simple form Of bill Of lading, or will take
them only upon bill Of adpg, under contract in
which the responsibility is taken for the exception
that 10 the law nowf he is liberty do 1t now--as
have said, the only purpose OF passing these provisions
Of Law 10 which attention is directed il that
Congress may step in and discharge the from the
responsibility which he has voluntarily incurred. Now
II there any doubt about the ability of the ship
to oat bis responsibility the shipper OF the goods then
strike out all this section. and insert lieu thereof that
tho liability OF the shp-owDer shall depend upon
hcbA 81 iadlng and that he shall be liable the
prov Asd foein The bill OF laang. and other II there
ID any doubt whether this depends upon the mans own
ArNAnf fhnn riDura hat .bs
10 the clear the as, and right position in which the act
should stand III the takes the goods 10 carry, he
should make h- contract to the terms upon which he
10 carry them and the Liability which he is TO incur
and yos should declare BY your law that shall depend
upon the bill OF iadng-upon the contract Of the party
bu 90 not put the restriction upon the contract by law
which makes the liability of the party depend not upon
the bill Of 2pK which given for that is clearly his
contracts that clearly what he proposes that s clearly
what ne AGse~s tobut upon other and
and allowance no, expressed in the bill of ladins
seems to me- hen IN that point OF view, that the bill Is
liable u Q decided objection.
WN know tst, with regard 10 the Parliament, of C,o,,
BriAs. exercises high, sad ovefuiing and absolute
poser mon euch subjects and when declares tina, The
Iexfy shall not be Responsible, all contrac past and
present.. which stand IN The way OF the supreme will OF
the nson mast give place to IT. Ii is here and IN
my opsnies u ought not 10 be co. think, therefore,
Mr. President that the bill sspect, as have said
self; il he canRo The bill should sulborze him do
The other aspeet OF the bill. in my Judgment is mis-.
chAvoss. ~ making ibe liability OF the party depend
npon ~ mating the Agreement, but upon a law which
contro nsss and raodbes the agreement OF the parties
without The consent OF one OF them. Ha.
Whhe " Q are specializing upon the amount OF INTEL b.
ganeAa the ship owners. must remember that there
n inf