The Daily Telegraph. THURSDAY, DECEMBER 27, 1883.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3881, 27 December 1883, Page 2

The Daily Telegraph. THURSDAY, DECEMBER 27, 1883.

The one-sided character of bills of lading for goods shipped at London by tho vessels of tho largo steamship companies to the Australian colonies has attracted the attention of tho Chambers of Commerce. As bills of lading arc now drawn up it is next to impossible for consignees to recover the value of damage. The chairman of the AA r ellington Chamber, in alluding to this matter, said tho conditions were so drawn that the only object seemed to be how not to leave tho shipowner liable under any conceivable circumstances. So well had this object been attained, that it was almost impossible to imagine a case in which consignees could have a clear legal remedy against tlic shipowners for damage to goods, no matter how great the carelessness might be. Many commercial men wore under the impression that shipowners come under the Imperial Act, which regulated railway companies and other common carriers, but that was not so, for shipowners wore free to make such conditions of contract as might suit their interest, without regard to the interest of those whoso goods were carried. They used that liberty to the fullest extent in making conditions in bills of liulimr, so that juiy person shipping- to the Australian colonies under such bills of lading as the large companies choose to frame, was obi J go<l to ship under those conditions or none. Tho conditions were equally binding on consignees, who accepted delivery of goods so shipped, thero being no remedy at cither end. The Chambers of Commerce at Christchurch, Auckland, and also in Australia, now desired to take united action with reference to this common grievance. The opinion of a leading firm of solicitorsin London had been obtained, to the effect that tho bills of lading used by the steamship companies trading with Australia would afford little if any security to shippers of cargo, the shipowners expressly contracting themselves out of all liability. This opinion further stated that if a merchant shipped goods, knowing tho usual terms in tho particular bills of lading, or if he accepted delivery with such a bill of lading, he was bound by the conditions, because tho bill of ludingcontaincd the con tract under which the goods were carried. The contract would be valid, notwithstanding that it might bo unreasonable. There was a manifest inconsistency in tho English law as between common carriers on land and those on water ; but until tho law could be altered the only remedy for merchants was to decline to ship under such conditions. He said a similar opinionhad been obtained from solicitors in Sydney. It thus appeared that merchants here hud not any option, because all the steam lines trading to Australia used the same form of contract in bills of lading. It would be possible, by co-operation, to get such amendment made in the Imperial legislation as would place the ocean-carrying trade on a just basis. Tho chairman then moved "That this Chamber considers that the clauses introduced into the bills of lading, now in use by the steamship companies trading to the Australian colonies, practically relieved them from liability; and that immediate steps should be taken to secure such Imperial legislation as will afford equitable terms to shippers." Mr McTavish, in seconding the resolution, said it -was an uubusi-ness-like and absurd anomaly for carriers of merchandise on water to be able to free themselves from [that liability which was imposed by law on all other common carriers. It woidd bo surprising if shippers, consignees, and merchants in these colonies, who were deliberately placed at a disadvantage by clauses in bills of lading, neglected to bestir themselves with tho object of finding a remedy. AAliatcver difference of opinion there might be as to the legal remedy for damage by neglect or want of skill, thero was no doubt that shipping companies intended to free themselves from every kind of responsibility as carriers by framing their bills of lading with that object. It was not every injured individual who cared to risk the results of an action against powerful companies, because of the proverbial uncertainty of everything except the bill of costs. To show that these bills of lading were against tho spirit of the law, ho quoted from "Addison on Contracts," as follows:—"Generally speaking, it is not competent to a party to enter into a contract for flic performance of a particular duty, and by the same contract to stipulate that he shall be exempt from all legal responsibility if ho neglects to do what he has undertaken to perform." This was what tho steamship companies did ns carriers of goods, and the Chamber could not take action too soon in placing their just liability beyond disjmte. The motion was agreed to unanimously. It was further resolved to forward copies of the resolution to the London Chamber of Commerce, to Sir Julius Vogel, and others, requesting their active co-operation.