BILLS OF LADING.

Press, Volume XLVIII, Issue 7866, 18 May 1891, Page 2

BILLS OF LADING.

Th-followinß letter ha 9 been ___**w_rded to the Hon. the Premier :— 15th April, IS9I. The Hon. J. Ballance, Wellington. Dear Sir, —I observe from a telegram in to-day's paper that, iv reply to a deputation from the Wellington Chamber of Commerce, on the subject of the many exemptions now inserted in bills of lading, you expressed the opinion that it was a matter for the Imperial Government to legislate upon, as the colouy could not pass an Act which would affect bills of lading issued at Home. It is, of course, true that we in New Zealand cannot pass laws alFectiug bills of lading signed in Europe, but I would respectfully ask if it is not possible to legislate respecting bills of lading signed in New Zealand and dealing with „ew Zealand produce. By the present law of the colony the owners of ships trading from port to port in New Zealand cannot absolve themselves from responsibility by inserting unreasonable terms in thsir bills of lading * and it has already been held by the New Zealand Courts that, notwithstanding reservations in bills of lading to the effect that the ship is not respou-ible " for the neglect, default, or error ia judgment of the master, &c," the shipowner cannot absolve himself of his responsibility if the goods are lost or damaged through tho fault of the master. In fact the New Zealand Statutes specially enact that carriers by aea or laud in the colouy must accept the very responsibility from which the steamship "owners in England specially exempt themselves by the conditions of their oills of lading. Now it appears to mc that if New Zealaud can compel the shipowners trading coastwise iv the colony to become responsible where goods are lose through the negligence of their employes, &c, it ia quite competent for the New Zealand Legislature to compel shipowners loading in New Zealand for foreign ports to become equally reeponsible. In fact it seems to mc "that if our locally-owned ships have to bear this responsibility, we are an exceedingly philanthropic people if we allow foreign-owned ships to do business with us upon more favorable terms. At present we are supposed to have adopted a protective policy, but if we permit the existing state of affairs to continue we are protecting foreign, while penalising local, owners. The subject is one of considerable importance, as New Zealand is now exporting annually many millions of pounds' worth of produce to Great Britain, and tbe English steamship companies by their present bill of lading forms exempt themselves from almost every contingency.

Now, Mr Justice Richmond in his judgment in re s.s. Tui, Staples t Joseph and others, pointed out thac by the law of New Zealand, it ia not enough to show that tbe shipper has acquiesced in the general practice. His acquiescence may amount to no more than voluntary submission to terms virtually dictated by the other contracting party; and he further pointed out that the New Zealaud •Statutes pr_ctlc_lly prohibit ships sailing in New Zealaud waters from exempting themselves from responsibility by means of unreasonable conditions.

I would therefore respectfully ask if it is not possible for the Government to amend the law so that all goods loaded in New Zealand, whether for colonial or for English ports, shall be placed on the same footing. I have the honor to be, Your obedient servant, Geo. G. Stead. Mr Stead has received the following reply from the Premier to his letter of Apri 15th :— (Xo. 185-32). Premier's Office, Wellington, sth-May, 1891. Sir—l have tho honor to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 15th ultimo, asking whether it would not be possible for the Government to amend the law so that owners of ships carrying goods to places beyond the colony should be responsible to the shippers for delivery in good condition, in spite of any stipulation to the contrary in bills of lading. In reply, 1 have to inform you that the Government is advised that, if deemed expedient, a law could be passed in the colony affording shippers of good- some means of relief from being compelled to accept unreasonable terms for the carriage of their goods from a local port, yet such a law could not affect to impose a liability on the carrier or shipowner on arrival at a foreign port. It is considered that the readiest means for enabling the shipper to obtain the relief as suggested would be, that upon a shipper tendering his goods, and objectionable, or rather unreasonable, conditions being sought to be imposed by the carrier, the parties should come before some special tribunal to alter or modify the conditions to such as are deemed reasonable. The Government will give this suggestion due consideration, with the view of a Bill being framed on the lines indicated, if on mature reflection such action should be deemed feasable or desirable.—l have the honor to be, sir, your most obedient servant, J. Btr.TtsrTG. G. Stead, Esq., Chr-jwhurch. i