The New Orleans bulletin. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1874-1876, 1875-03-11

of contract, argument was directed
mainly upon the question whether or no
the con .ract was binding; that is whether i
was competent for the express company b,
contract, to limit its liability in this manner
Ii was held to be now we'll settled that commo,
carriers Il ay thus reduce their common Law
obligations and the point of greatest in crest
therefore, is to know how far they may 90 il
this direction The public is quite we'll aware
OF the fact remarked upon by the court that
''common carriers do not deal with their EN-.
ployero on equal terms, the latter having,
| indeed, no voice whatever in making the So
called contracts imposed upon them. They
will, therefore, heartily applaud the senti-
ment Of the court that common carriers
ought lot to be 'allowed to take advantage OF
their powers and Of the necessities Of the pub
lie to exact exemptions from that measure Of
| duty which public policy demands.
What, then, is the limitation of these pow
| ers, suggested by the Supreme Court Of the
| United States The answer IS, that the stlp-
nlaton, Of The carrier must be reasonable
In the case at bar, the court considered the
condition reasonable, in view of the difficulty
in tracing loss after the lapse of time, no
corresponding hardship being imposed on the
shipper i'll requiring him to notify the COM
pany of the loss within ninety days.
The principle announced deserves to be
stated a little more at large, in the Ian
guage Of the court itself. Certainly" says
Judge Strong, :" it ought not t. be admitted
that common carrier can be relieved from
the full measure of that responsibility which
ordinarily attends his occupation without a
clear and express stipulation to that effect,
obtained by him from his employer And
even when such a stipulation has been OBJ
tanned, the court must be able to see that it is
not unreasonable. We suppose it is hardly
necessary to guard the reader against the in
ference that a stipulation, in order to have
been obtained from the employer" within
the meaning OF the court, must be signed by
him.
The court does not mean to say, that re-
celpts signed by the carrier alone and merely
taken by the shipper as vouchers, will not de-
termine the amount of the carriers response
biity, but only that in order to have that
effect the condition imposed must be reason
able in the opinion of the court OF course
there is good deal of room here even yet,
for uncertainty as to what conditions will
thus be held binding; all the more because as
there are many courts, 50 there Will also be
many Judicial minds as to what is reasonable
and what is not. For example, the Supreme
Court Of Alabama held tnat limitation
similar 10 that in the present case, ex-
cept that it was for thirty days, was not
good one, while on the other hand, the
English Exchequer considered it a reasona-
bic stipulation in bill of lading that the |
shipper should make claim for the loss Of the |
goods within seven days after the time when |
they should have been delivered. In New |
York it has been determined by the Court of |
Appeals that notice contained IN q telegraph |
blank that the company will not be RESPONSE
BILE beyond a certain amount unless the mes
sage IS repeated, is binding; and the Com
mission of Appeals has likewise determined |
that notice on al ordinary railroad ticket that
it is "good for this day only is a reasona-
bic stipulation, which relieves the carrier
from any obligation to carry the buyer on
any other day.
The same question has been otherwise
decided in other States, though the current
Of decisions runs with that of our highest
court. It will take time to. harmonic the
conf citing views OF courts as to the relson-
sbiencss of the various limitations which
carriers thus attempt TO impose upon their
customers; but 1t Is, AZ any rae, satisfactory
o have a principle laid down by the highest
llbunal III the lind to serve as a rule If in
expectation, which Inferior conr;s viii feel
pound to respect, and by means Of which,
therefore,, the day will be fastened when the
questions at issue Will be settled and shippers
md common trriers alike given to know the
Measure OF their rights and res possibilities
Great Destruction of sugar in Cuba.
A correspondent of the New York .Slu.
Eriting from Havana under date of February
18th, says:
Gen. Rolotf has been sent on mission to
aqua and Remedies, acc ompaned by
mall number of men, so as to form the nu-
leus for the recruits from those districts who
ave offered to join them. The owner of
lantation undertook to save his property by
resting several prominent Cubans Of Sln,a
lara threatening to hang them if his planta-
on was burned.
Gen. Varela ordered their immediate re-
ease. as he considered the lives of his sol
iers, then prisoners with the Cubans, of far
lore importance than few cane fields. The
Ian to burn the plantations between Cardenas
nd Jovellauos which had been known to
Sist, was partly carried into execution, but
OF seconded by any rising OF the people
he plantations burned were the San Vicente
e Junco Churhita. Delria, La Antonia, L.
ugenia, San Juan, Conquists, Oamendi !
elayo, Aim agro, Junco Aguiar. The loss is
'timated equivalent 10 $1,000 hogsheads Of
l9ar.