The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1890-07-28
TIE NEW Bill OF LADlSG,
Some OF thu Objections 10 1t Answercd.
Features Tint Commend II,

~ ~ Y
Features Tint Commend It.
Railroad GG,sHe.
The representative bodies OF the prin
cipat TRADE centres seem to be stirred VI
aboutth terms Of the new bill OF ladin,
adopted by the railroads aud soon to &,
into effect. In tho issue OF May 9 W.
made some comments upon certain slip
ulatlons in the new form, such, for ex,
ample, as thoao which apparently OK.
empt the carrier In certain cases FROM
almost every kind OF loss Imaginable.
The phrases which VIC then commented
upon arc among those objected to by tho
different Boards oil Trade. These mer-
chants naturally object 10 tho great mum.
her OF clauses, aud call attention TO the
English enactment Oil the subject as con-
tanned in section I of the Railway and
Canal Traffic Act Of 1851: EVERY such
company shall be liable for the loss OF or
injury 10 any hoods in tho re.
celving, forwarding or delivering thereof
occasfoned by neglect or default OF auch
company or its servants, notwi,hstand.
ing any notice, condition or declaration
made contrary thereto or in anywise
limiting such liability"
This principle Is, OF course, applicable
to American business, aud as Wo know
Is Ia large measure already recognized
by our courts; but, as we have before
pointed out, the shifting OF the burden
OF proof FROM tho carrier TO the shipper
by some apparently innocent phrase il
one OF tue most irritating features of
disputes about freight contracts, and it
10 not strange that merchants "kick"
on general principles. They know they
have a grievance, but they DO not take
pains to carefully define 1t.
But other objections OF Boards ofTrade
arc not so well taken. A prominent
point Of their attack is against the pro-
vision Of the new bill Of lading Limiting
its negotiability to such instances us are
expressly SO declared. Apparently the
boards are as far wrong here us they
may be right regar ing the extreme ex-
emption clauses. What is it they ask
that all Dills Of lading shall bs ne
sotiable? This, In its true sens , is
more than the common law has ever az.
serted. When we say that a plain bill
OF lading not made out ito order" il
negotiable, We mean that it is 30 only in
a very limited sense. Promissory notes
are negotiable in the strict sense since
they can pass from hand to hand, and
because the last owner has all the equal
rights Of the first. But u plain bill Of
lading passes title TO the property car
fied only under exceptional circum-
stances, and yer then there is doubt
enough to put a cloud over the owner
ship. Lawyers have invented the term
"quasi-negotiable," but the whole mat.
ttr is n OF our well.knoSn law mud.
dies. 1t would be Tor the real advantage
OF both carrier and shipper if the cx
istiug uncertainty could be ended. THIS
would BIZ done by the proposed plan Of
having every bill Of ladlng clearly either
Il thing Or the other.
The matter Is complicated by the at
tempts OF legislatures different in differ.
ent States, rs might be cxpecled) to
mend affairs by statute. Thus in New
York there is law which makes all
carriers responsible il they deliver any
freight, whether uuder straight consign-
ment or not, without production Of the
bill OF lading; u Law impossible Of exc
cutlon OF course, because more than half
the consignors take out no bill OF lading
and some not ever q receipt. This law
is a dead letter from the very necessity
OF the business, and no New York rail. |
road pays any attention to its provisions,
and yet it is on the statute book
and may BIO revived, 10 some
carriers great possible loss. Again, a
point is made that bills OF lading iraudu.
lently obtained 10 cover property-cot.
ton, We will say--neYer delivered to the
carrier, will he a loss to the innocent
holder Of the bill OF lading for value if
made non~-negotiable. This will not be
the case under the latter form any more /
than now, for the Supreme Court OF the
United States bus decided that when no
property has actually been delivered to
the carrier, the bill OF lading is ultra rires,
and therefore void. Indeed, we are OF
snre that the carriers, by making q dis
tinctfon clear which is now confused be-.
tween negotiable and non.negotiable
bills, are not laying themselves open to
future losses from this very source. II
fraudulent bill Of lading is declared by
the railroad itself to be legally negotia-
bic, it certainly adds another element to
The case.
What is the objection, then, OF the
shipper Of grain to the distinction now
sought 10 be made? l. can only DO that
under certain circumstance he would
like to take advantage OF the uncertain
and quasi.regotiable character OF the old
form. But granting the right and husl-
ness need Of the grain shipper to sell his
shipment en- route, it seems butjust that
the carrier should have notice Of bis in
tention. Practically this can only be
obtained by notice ut the outset through
q sharp Distinction in form. The rail.
road has an equitable right 10 know
whether The freight cun safely be deliv-
cred to the primo facie consignee or
whether it must first take pains to ascer.
tain the reui owner. PCT 10 this way,
the dispute in all fairness is entirely in
favor Of the carrier, and tho carriers, rs
far as n~esotiability is concerned, can
safely reGs their case before the public