New-York tribune., 1922-10-29

governments for damage done by gov
ernment-owned ships in public service
or private trade. Cn this subject also
the London conference reached
unanimous agreement.
First information on the activities of
the conference was brought back to this
conStry last week by Mr.. Haight, who
success
Liability Unchanged
mo one even suggested any change
in. the rules, as now drawn, which SHIFT
the burden of proof from the shipper to
the carrier IN the case of pilferage and
the multitude of other exceptions which
have heretofore been included in bills
OF lading," said Mr.. Haight. at was
also agreed by the great majority of
the delegates present that the bargain
previously reached at the Hague in
1921, fixing the limit of the carriers'
liability at 91o0 q package ought not
TO De re-opened at the diplomatic
conference.
"Articls III, Sections and 4, refer
ring to the scope of the bills of ladinp
caused much discussion, owing to the
amendment which had been made hv
the British interests in section a. MAX
ing that section apply to bulk cargoes
ard whole cargoes of timber as well as
TO other trades. Section 4, as amended
oy the British interests and submitted
to the conference, read as follows:
-. Such bill of lading shall be
pr1ma facie evidence of the recent bv
the carrier of the goods, as therein de-
scrlbed IN accordance with section r
(a), (b) and (c).'
Tramp Owners Win
he tramp owners insisted that thew
should not be required to sign. under
section 3, for the quantity or weight
OF bulk cargo, since under virtually all
circumstances they had no possible
means Of checking the same. To meet
TINS objection it was unanimously
agreed that the last paragraph of Arti-
Gle III, Section 3, should be amended
20 read as follows, the added clause be-
ing the words in parentheses:
Provided that no carrier. master
or agent of the carrier shall be bound
TO issue bill of lading showing any
description, marks, number, quantity.
or weight which he has reasonable
ground tor suspecting do not accu-
rately represent the goods actually re-
ceived Cor which he has had no reason
able means of checking).'
10 overcome the technical decisions
IN the Circuit Courts OF Appeal for the
second and IhIrd circuits in this coun-
try the first part of Article III. Section
., covering notice of loss and suit. was
amended to read as follows:
Unless notice of loss or danage
and the general nature of such loss or
damage be given in writing to the car
r1er or his agent at the port of dis
charge etc.
Suit in One Year
AS to the balance of this section it
was agreed that the time at which no.
tIce must be given and the neriod
within which suit must be broupbt
should be left to the diplomatic con.
terence because of the great variety in
the law and practices in the yar;ons ne
countries co on this particular subieet
ihe probabilities are that the time IN
winch suit must be brought will he
made twelve months and not two wears
as as amended by the British interests'
Inc time at which notice must be rive,
presented aome difficulty. 1t was moi
considered fair to the cargo to renuirc
the giving Of notice when the goods
we're placed on the pier, since the con-
slgnee might. not see the Goods far
some time thereafter. On The othsr