New-York tribune., 1922-03-14
Shippers Outline
Objections to New
Hague Regulations
Meat Packers Declare Pro-
posed international Bill
of Lading Is Incomplete
and Unfair to Exporters

Objections to the proposed Hague
shipping rules for international use,
set forth by the Institute of Amerl-
can Meat Packers, are quoted by A. j.
Wolfe, chief Of the division Of CONNER
cial law OF the Department of Com
merce, as covering many points which
must be considered In a statement
made public yesterday in Commerce
Reports" Mr.. Wolfe says that the cx-
treme views of the shippers cannot be
put into operation, and that the result
must be compromise based upon the
needs of the steamship companies and
the insurance companies as we'll as the
exporters. Points mentioned by the
meat packers in 8 letter to Charles S.
Haight, chairman Of the bill of lading
committee of the international Cham
ber of Commerce, include the follow
ing:
/. They do not cover the period prior
to actual attachment to ships tackle
and subsequent to release from ships
tackle, but only the period Of physical
presence on the ship.
3. They do not cover "on deck" cargo.
3. They do not provide that carrier
shall be compelled to keep the ship
seaworthy.
4. They do not allow sufficient time
in which to file claims, but still com
pei the manifest impossbility Of filing
a claim for concealed loss before re-
mova from possession OF the carrier.
B. They deny the right Of the carrier
to relieve itself, or limits it liability.
only In accordance With Article and
not in accordance with the entire rules.
s. They make the shipper responsible
for acts OF the carriers agents, in spite
Of the fact that he has no control over
them.
7. They do not place liability on the
carrier for fire, regardless Of how or
where occurring.
$. There is no stipulation when the
rules shall become effective or when
they shall expire.
g. There is no liability imposed on
the carrier for pilfcragc while the
cargo is in his possession.
10. They do not impose liability on
the carrier for discharging into insult
able lighters or onto unsuitable docks
II: They do not make provision for
carriers giving proper notice to CON
slgnor or consignee under certain CON
dltions; for example, the discharge Of
goods at other points than as CON
templated at the beginning Of the
voyage.
II, They contain no provision for
keeping on fllc copies of the carriers
port to port" bills of lading, so that
'fN' may ItoptNL tNtlV DcIOrp en-
terlng into contracts with the carrier.
13. They do not forbid the carrier
from inserting a stipulation that he
shall have the benefit Of insurance
placed by the owner or shipper
On the other hand, there are certain
Objectionable things which the rules
do provide for. For example:
/. They make the owner guarantee
marks to remain legible until the end
of the voyage.
?. IN spite Of the fact that carrier
IS in position to determine whether
owners description of quantity. marks. |
etc, is correct, they place the burden |
Of guaranty upon the shipper that
these items have been correctly stated.
3. They allow deviation from tho
original scheduled voyage when specifi-
cally provided for in contract of car
rage, but in no other place in the
rules do they mention or legitima attic !
such contract nor do they provide |
whether ouch contract when entered |
into shall be superior to or subservient |
to the usual form of bill of lading in
use by the carrier.
d. They set up an entirely new and
needless and uncalled for shipping doc
ument, known as "Reccved for ship
ment" bill Of lading
D. They also set up a useless and |
valueiess form Of negotiable bill
of lading. O'i'