New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1911-09-02
American Bankers Association
Want 1t to Have Fair Trial.
MAIN PURPOSE NOT HALTED
Committee Will Continue to Seek
Legislation for Safeguard
ing Bills of Lading.


American Bankers Association, at a meet
ing held Yesterday, recommended that. with
certain notifications, the proposed plan OF
the Liverpool cotton bills of lading confer.
ence committee for the establishment of a
central bureau or clearing house for bills
Of lading have favorable consideration by
the exchange buying banks of the country.
The committee announced. however, that in
making this recommendation 1t did not In
any manner wish TO convey the impression
that the proposed plan was to interfere at
all with the main purpose of the committee
In obtaining legislation for safeguarding
bills OF lading now before Congress In the
| form Of the Stevens bill.
| While none of the banks is bound by the
committees recommendation. II is believed
that a majority Of them will consent to
give the central bureau plan q fair trial,
and such action on their part Will so
long way toward ending the bill of lading
controversy which has been going on in
cotton. banking and railroad circles for
more than two years.
Charles s. Haight. Of the New York law
firm OF Wheeler, Corts & Haight, who
gave out, on behalf of the Liverpool cot
ton bills Of ladng conference committee.
the details Of the plan for operating the
central bureau. which was printed in Fri
days Tribune represented the Liverpool
committee at the meeting yesterday, Whlle
Mr. Godehsux. of New Orleans. represented
the Southern banks which have made OBJ
lection to the scheme. The following were
found 70 he the chief objections 10 the plan
as originally proposed:
/
| advantage 10 exchange buyers in New York
/ City by reason Of the fact that the centrsi
/ bureau would be there located.
! Second-That the plan in its operation
would prevent the ready negotiation. ac-
ceptance and payment or gratis Drawn
! against cotton shipments.
! Third-That under the plan the foreign
| buyer would not properly discriminate IN
| the selection of his agents.
| Fourth-That the form OF nothcauon 20
the central bureau as proposed mlg In,, 6e
! construed as placing additional responsible
| ity upon the exchange buYins nanFs Tor
genuineness of bills Of lading
! To obviate the first objection II was sus-
gested with the assent Of the represent
alive of the foreign interests. that the cen
| trail bureau. instead Of sending acknowl-
edgmAnts Of each bill Of lading in response
| To notification, should give no information
! 70 any one concerned, except only In cases
| where particular bills of lading had been
| found forged or otherwise ineffective, thus
preventing the pyramidng or emulation
OF losses. The committee considered that
the change thus proposed would remove
| the first objection.
! As 10 the second objection the inquiry
was specifically made of the representative
Of the foreign interests whether it was the
intention Of the foreign bankers TO refuse
or delay the acceptance OF drafts until they
would hear from the central bureau. He
replied that such an idea had never been
| entertained. that the central bureau was
not expected 70 receive an application from
European banker at all: that no one mad
ever thought Of such thing. The commit
tee reached the decision that there was no
ground for the second objection and that
interior bills would. as heretofore. be hon
ored on presentation. in accordance with
their terms both I'm this country and
abroad ana without regard TO any work Of
investigation by the central bureau.
Concerning the third objection the com
rnittee thought the initial American bank l
would be assumed TO have closer informa-
ton Of the responsibility of It's clients, and
that even assuming a failure TO discrmi-
nate properly IN the selection Of his agents
by the foreign buyer the loss from any
| fraudulent transaction. in view Of the ex
istence Of central bureau. would DO of
comparatively trihing character
With regard 10 the fourth objectinn, con
corning responsibility from the form of !
notification, this question was submitted 70
the general counsel Of the American Bank
ers' Association. and such change was
made by him in the draft as TO make II
clear that the bank handling the bill Of
ladng held the same as a pledge merely
for collateral security. and assumed no re-
sponsbility for its genuneness or for the
quantity or quality of the cotton described
therein.
All the objections being eliminated, the
committee reached the decision that the
plan was a valuable one in safeguarding
against forgery and should have at least
fair trial.