CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XX, Issue 6815, 20 September 1883, Page 6

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.

A meeting of the Auckland Chamber of Commerce was held yesterday, to 'consider . the question of bills of lading. Mr. L. D. Nathan occupied the chair. BILLS OF LADING. The following letters were brought before the meeting in connection with the report of the committee of the Chamber, of Commerce Sydney Chamber of Commerce, 30th August, 1833. ! —To the Secretary Chamber nf Commerce, Auckland: ' Sir,—Tho tori ua evils that have arisen by the intro duetion of cial claus -s in bills of lading iS'.aed by steam companies en.ragfd in the Australian trade, have boei under the consideration of this Chamber, and it has been resolve 1 to invite the co-operation of the Londou Chamber in ventilating the question, and to assist in devising means to secure the adoption of an equitublo form of bill of lading. I have the honour to enclose copy of a letter addressed to tho Londoh Chamber on the subj ,-ct, and have been instructed, to invite the assistance of your Chamber i'n tlie effbrt now_ being made to remove the evils complained of by similar action on your part, or by any other means which yonr committee may deem advisable.—l have, ■ &c., Charles II Hayes, Secretary. Melbourne, 27th August. ISS3.—To the President of the chamber of Commerce, Auckland; Sir.—'At a conference of the m.vir.e underwriters oi the Australian colonies, which met in this city in June last, the following on was 'idopt^d:—Kesnlvo:l, " Tbit the Chairman be requested to communicate with the various Chambers of Commerce in Australia and Now Zealand, ieformingthem of the desiro of the inemoers of the conference so assist in any way they can in obtaining more equitable clause? in bills of lading, and in requiring also the signatures of the masters of ships onl. to all such documents." The subject matter of th*t resolution is one which.the delegates to the conference were unanimously of opinio ! should bewa mly taken up by the niercatile ■ and underwriters' interest involved. X have much pleasure in complying with the desiro of theconl ference, and conveying to you the terms of the r.eso- [ lution.—lam, S r, your obedient servant, JiDW AitD T. Watsjh, Chairman of Conference. i The committee of the Auckland Chamber of Commerce having considered the above letters, brought up the following report : — "Circulars have beeu received from the Melbjurne Shipping and Underwriters' Association an t tho Sydney Chamber of Commerce, referring to special clauses introduced iuto the steamship bills of lading,, and asking the assistance of this Chamber in remedying tho evil complained of. The commit tec having considered the matter, recommend the Chamber to co-operate with the association referred to in obtaining a more equitable form of hill of lading." The Chairman moved, " That tho report of the committee be agreed to." Mr. Pkacock seconded the motion. He uudcrstood that the motions bearing on the subject would ba brought before the Chamber. Report adopted. The Chairman said the meeting had been called to consider more particularly the report of the committee re bills of lading, which had just been adopted. They had been invited by the Sydney and Melbourne Chambers of Commerce to co operate with them in protesting against the arbitrary clauses which were at present inserted in the bills of lading. It was a matter which had been under the consideration Of the Chamber, and a matter to which he had directed his attention for some time past. He supposed those present were all acquainted with the arbitrary clauses in question of the bills of lading. There was no necessity to read them. They were very arbitrary, and the fact was, the importer, who was obliged to take goods under these bills of lading, had no remedy whatever. Candidly speaking, he always thought shipping companies came under the Carriers' Act; and for the information of those present he would read the opinion o? one of the leading solicitors of Sydney, bearing on the subject—the opinion being given as late as March last. He said : " Understanding that you feel some interest in the restrictions of liability introduced in bills of lading of the great carrying companies plying between Great Britain and the Australian colonies, and that you hrtvc been under the impression—which is supported by the late Lord Ellenborough's observation—that such restrictions are absolutely inoperative, I observe that I have lately had occasion professionally to consider this subject, and that I am able to give you the opinion of two eminent counsel lately taken on tho subject of these restrictions. I cannot do better than furnish you with the enclosed copy, to which it seems scarcely necessary to add that it is almost impossible to imagine a case in which the ship can be held liable under the bill of lading in question, and consignees who ship under it must be prepared, if damage be sustained, to bear their own loss ; or, if insured, the underwriters must bo prepared to pay without redress against the ship, howove.r gross the neglect on the part of the shipowners or their servants may be, unless it. can be proved that the vessel was unseaworthy when the goods, were shipped; a condition not likely in the cases of the vessels in question." When he (Mr. Nathan.) was in Sydney, he saw several of the leading merchants and men connected with shipping matters on this subject, and he noticed that a meeting of the Sydney Chamber of Commerce had been Called On the 7ih iustant, for the special purpose of considering tho question of bills of lading, and the Sydney Chamber asked the Auckland Chamber to co-operate with them in the matter. It was unnecessary, hethought, toread the clauses, but those present could talte it for granted that the merchants here had no pro tection whatever. He had seen these large steamers—which were bound to time by contract —bundling out their cargo right and left as fast a3 possible, thereby damaging the contents of packages to a very serious extent, for which the importers had no remedy whatever against the owners of the vessels, who protected themselves by their bills of lading. He had even gone so far as to expostulate with the stevedores and agents of the vessels, and the reply Was, that they handled the goods as carefully as they possibly could under the circumstances. Where vessels had to discharge night and day, it followed as a natural consequence that a lot of packages must be fearfully knocked about, especially anything Of a perishable or breakable nature. He had heard of a number of cases—just and gopd cases—against companies, but these companies were so powerful, and could appeal and appeal, and thus wear a poor importer out, that it was far better for the importer to allow tho matter to drop and accept tho inevitable. He was much struck on reading the following case, which bore on the point :— It was the case of " The Chartered Mercantile Bank of India v. Netherlands India Steam Navigation Company." In summing up this case, Lord Justice Brett said: "if shipowners in general, or if shipowners in a particular trade, were to venture to draw up bills of lading in a form which would absolve them from responsibility for their own porsonal negligence, or for their own personal want of reasonable care and skill, on the application of shippers of goods, an Aet of Parliament would probably be passed such ns that which was passed by the Legislature to put down a similar attempt on the part of the railway companies to escape from liability—l mean the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1854." He (Mr. Nathan) believed that the action of the Auckland Chamber of Commerce and the associated Chambers of Australasia would be to apply to the Imperial Parliament, asking that an Act might be brought into force for the protection of importers in general. With this view he pro* posed the following resolution :—"That this Chamber consider that the clauses introduced into the bills of lading now in use by the leading steamship, companies trading with the Australasian colonies practically relieves them from liability, and that immediate steps should be taken to secure an equitable amendment of the same in the interests of shippers." Mr. Peacock had much pleasure in seconding the resolution which had been moved, and he thought it would be well if one of the bills of lading referred to.should be read, which would be sufficient to bear oat the opinion of tho legal authority quotei — that really there was no practical liability on the part of steamship owners. He thought it would be well if the Secretory read the clauses referred to, and that would bring the matter still more prominently before the Chamber. The Secretary of tho Chamber then road the provisions on one of the bilis of lading. Mr. McMillan was very glad to support tho resolution. As bills of lading, were Blade out it was a waste of money to attempt to bring any action against tho owners of vessels, and they simply had to pocket their loss and make the best of it. Ho was yery glad that this important subject had been brought before the Chamber. It was proposed to join with the Chambers of Sydney and Melbourne, and thus bring some powerful pressure to bear in tho proper quarter. He hoped the matter would be pressed on by the Chairman—that the Chairman would do his utmost to get the remedy which wa3 desired. Mr. R. H. Stevenson said this was a matter of very great importance. It had been seated that the only safe course open

was. not to ship by the companies. The Orient Company was the most stringent in . regard to bills of lading. The Union Steamship Company of New Zealand bad framed their bills 6b, those of the Orient Company. Mr. AlcuAs' had very great pleasure in supporting the resolutions.. After the viery important data placed before the committee and the Chamber itself he did not see how, reasonably, they could do anything else under the circumstances in the protection of the interests of the shippers and of comnierce generally. The document just read by the Secretary, it would be apparent to the. meanest capacity, was a most extraordinary one, It was drawn in such a way as to devise "how not to be liable." That Was really the intention. With all carrying companies throughout the World, it was generally accepted as an axiom of law that they were liable for the acts of their servants, for their negligence and carelessness, This was admitted all Over the world as a just cause for liability. On the bills of lading as drawn-—as stated by Lord Justice. Brett, and in fact there was a general concensus of legal opinion on the matter—no liability whatever could lie at the doors pf the large sbipowning companies whilst carrying goods' under such bills of lading. It must. be manifest to the business community, and. to shippers generally, that some steps mtist he taken at once, and the sooner the better ; and he was very glad to see that the Auckland Chamber had been communicated With by the Sydney and Melbourne Chambers of Commerce, who were alive to the urgent necessity for something being done. He sincerely trusted in the steps to be taken, that they should communicate with the London Chamber of Commerce, and request their friends in, London to take up the cause and help to promote such legislation as would really place the carrying trade on a fair and just basis. •It was an anomaly that steamers and ocean going vessels— in fact that ships at all — should be placed on a different footing from railway !. companies and other ?o.mmon carriers. It was an anomaly, and it must be injurious to commerce and "trade generally, and the sooner it Was done away with the better.

Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Peacock: said the committee considered it would be Wise, in order to effect the objects desired, that the Auckland Chamber should go. on similar lines to the Melbourne and Sydney Chambers of Commerce, and put itself in communication with the .London Chamber pf Commerce, but it struck the committee as possible that the interests of the steamship owners might be very considerable in the Chamber of Commerce in London, and they might possibly Oppose any attempts made to obtain Imperial legislation for redressing the grievances complained o£ ; therefore it was eonsideredadvisable that they should also ask some prominent members of the House of Commons and others, who were associated with New Zealand and its commerce, to tiko ac interest in this matter, with tho view of carrying it to something like a definite issue. ,- The resolution he ha J to propose to the Chamber would practically give effect if carried to both of these ideas. In the first place, they would communicate with the London - Chamber of Commercestrengthened by the representations made by the Chambers of Melbourne and Sydney; and they would also ask certain gentlemen to take the initiative in getting a Bill introduced in Parliament for the purpose. He moved, " That this Chamber considers that Imperial legislation is necessary to remedy the defects in the existing law. referred to in the foregoing resolution ; that copies .of the above be sent to the s Loudon of Com meree, Sir > William 5 McArthur,' M. P. ; A. J. Mundella •: Esq.;.- M;P. ; and Thomas Russell Esq.,' C.M.G,,requesting their active co-operation in the direction indicated," He felt sure that in enlisting the sympathies a of-- those gentlemen referred to>—some of y whose i, names had already . been mentioned ~ by the Sydney Chamber of Commerce,—that combined with the action of t »e London .Chamber, or without it, would likely,; lead: to. a remedy such as was required. Mr. H. B. Morton had. very great pleasure in seconding- the resolution, and in doing so he did.not think /any comment was necessary,—the evil was so patent to them Mr. McMillan-? thought.-they i ought to consider, the question.of -.the..Union Company's bills of. lading. "The resolution dealt with ocean-going steamers running to Australia, but not with the Union Company's bills pf lading. He thought there ought to be some means by which they, as a Chamber of Commerce, should express a strong opinion against the very arbitrary bill of lading of the Union Shipping Company; and he thought the Chairman should take that question in hand, and move in the proper quarters to bring around an alteration of the present.. bil3 of lading as issued by the Union Steamship Company. . .. .-. Mr. AiCKtN quite concurred in the spirit of Mr. Mc Milan's remarks., .5-In the main he was perfectly rjj;ht,-.and the Chamber should watch ..the matter,.carefully,;.hut he (Mr. Aiekin) . thought they had made the proper more in-going to.ihead quarters for an Imperial Act. -If such an Act ivas passed the New Zealand Parliament would:, follow suit, because they, invariably, copied Imperial Acts of that nature. . . - Mr.° McMillan thought that if they took the lead, so,to speak, jn New Zealand, made the proper representations here, and had the law altered as they desired, they would have a precedent to show the Imperial Parliament. This was a matter concerning New Zealand ports, and was a very important one." He thought if .they could show that this measure had been passed by the New Zealand Parliament, showing the injustice of the present bills, of lading, they would have a good case to go before the home authorities. He did not see why ! they "should ijnot ■ couple both together.'-""' . ' Mr. Peacock thought it was a mistake to raise this question at the present time. He did not think ; the Union Company's bills of lading were as strict as those they had been speaking of. That "would, he thought, be admitted. *; He ;.would deprecate mixing up these two ' questions. , The'second question might he ,dealt with'at a future time, of as a separate matter.' ■ Mr. Waddel asked if bills of lading by sailing vessels were' as''strict as " those of which they had been ' speaking. Competition, he thought, would cure the evils complained of. ' There were two lines; now seeking the trade of New Zealand. He thought this matter ought to be only a business transaction, and that,competition would find a cure. , ■ The Chairman , said that was what the importers of Australia hoped—that competition would effect a cure. At a meeting of the whole of the shipowners the bill of lading complained of was devised, and it was now desired by importers that Parliament should step in and protect the people bound to accept their goods by these vessels. Mr. Stevenson thought the best answer to Mr, Waddel was that an Act was re- ! quired to be passed in regard to railway companies, which were much more " get-at-able ' than shipping companies. He differed from Mr.:. Peacock in regard to the Union Company. As far as his recollection carried him, the Union Company had . drawn out their bill of lading almost, identically with , the Orient Company. Motion carried. >- Mr. Aickin moved "That the Chambers of Commerce in Sydney and Melbourne be informed, in reply to their circulars, that this Chamber heartily concurs in their proposed action re bills, of lading; and that copies qf these resolutions be forwarded to 'them." It Was merely the sequence of the resolutions previously passed by the Chamber • but, notwithstanding, it was necessary and proper as a matter of courtesy. The Chambers of Sydney and Melbourne had taken this matter up seriously; they had spared no expense, and had " feed" the best legal talent they could get in the colonies, which as had already been stated, corres- : ponded with the highest legal authority in England, that these bills of lading were valueless as regarded the protection of shippers. . '.. The Chairman seconded the resolution. Motion, carried. . SEf/IURK OF THE BiRQCE GAZELLE, The Chairman" said there was another matter which he wished to bring before the Chamber in connection with a vessel now in harbour, the Gazelle. It seemed to him that the state of the law empowering the seizure and forfeiture of vessels was a matter for discussion that fairly eame within the province of that Chamber. A Bimple statement of facts in connection with the ship Gazelle, now in our harbour, would put the question clear to thoso present. The Chairman then said : This vessel arrived here laden with coal from Newcastle. She is owned by Captain Ellis, of Sydney, a large shipowner, Her master is one Garth, and a day or two after arriving here the maister was charged with an alleged breach of the . Customs laws in importing goods contrary to

the ■; Customs Act. ■; The ! matter charged against him did not amount to a breach of tho law at all. This, is Vthe fact, strange as. it may seem. Still .the master went to Court without any legal assistance ; pleaded guilty, was fined £100 and costs ; which was duly paid. The captain no doubt did this because he and he alone, jf any ope, was to blame, and he knew full well that his owner knew nothing whatever of the matter. . The extent of the master's guilt appears to i consist of the following : —He had on board i broken packages of tobacco, whereas tho law says that "if a vessel has on. board or conveys tobacco in less than whole and complete packages of not less than 60lbs. weight, she shall' be forfeited." The master iisver anticir pated that after admitting his guilt, and paying, his fine, that the ship belonging to his innocent owner would be seized and for-, felted. Such, however, took place, and the vessel is now 'held by the authorities aa a. forfeited vessel. There is no question as to the innocence of the owner. Not one particle of proof can be obtained lihat he had. the slightest knowledge of any such act on. the part of the' master. .All. this, is clear and beyond doubt. The owner has sued in. the Supreme. Court to have it decided whether a vessel arriving in port from another colony with loose tobacco in broken packages on board is liable to .forfeiture, and that Court has decided that she is, ancl this though the owner is ever so innocent. Now, on the face pf it this looks a ease of monstrous injustice, and I can conceive nothing more likely to alarm shipowners from using New Zealand porta than that this state of pur law should be generally known. I do not know Who Mr. 1.11 is- is, and you Will, I am sure, believe m.e when X say that. I am entirely disinterested, except in so far that I am interested in the credit of ■the colony, as I feel assured such a scandalous legal wrong to a a innocent stranger mu3t be very prejudicial to us, and the sooner a Bill is passed enabling the Government to restore the ship or the value of it to the late owner, the better it will he to the credit of the Parliament, who are responsible for such an arbitrary Act being on the S't "tute-bpok in these days of supposed enlightened and liberal legislation. I know that vigorous measures must be taken t'o protect the revenue, for there would be no security to honest trading if a door is open for the perpetration of fraud j but surely, in the united wisdom of our public irun, some law can be devised that would serve to protect the revenue, and punish the fraudulent on the one hand, while steering clear of absolute injustice on the other. We have now the finest ship in the harbour that, I suppose, ever came to Auckland. Just fancy the uproar aud discredit that would ensue if the Government dared to seize and forfeit tho Doric if one pf her crew sold a few sticks of tobacco, Or a broken package of cigars was found to be on board ! The law of New j Zealand win.ld be the laughing stock of the whole commercial World, Yet the Supreme Court would be quite justified in ruling the legal seizure of the Doric, or one of the mail steamers, for aa offence against the Customs Act similar to what the captain of the Gazelle pleaded guilty to. All should stand on an equality before the law. There should be no distinction between the owner of a small cutter and the owners of the Great Eastern, and I have brought this question before you to-day in the belief that some member will make a motion showing that we are hot altogether supine on a great legal wrong done at our doors, because the wrong is done to strangers in another colony, . v.i Mr. Morton isked the chairman if he wag prepared to say that there was no breach of the law ? . ' The CtiAißifAN" said he was prepared to fiay so on legal authority. Mr. McMiLLAN said as the law now stood if a sailor or steward or anybody employed on a vessel had loose tobacco on board, the vessel was liable to forfeiture. He thought the law as it stood was outrageous. There was no protection whatever against sailors or stewards carrying loose tobacco, and the vessel was liable to forfeiture. He thought no language could be Used stfona enough to condemn such an arbitrary law existing. He hoped the Chamber would, pass a strong resolution on this matter. Mr. Stevenson said they all remembered the case of a steward of the mail steamer a few mouths ago being convicted for taking some cigars ashore, yet the mail steamer was not forfeited. Captain McKenzie moved, "That the committee be a committee of enquiry into the law in force in the Australian and other colonies, with respect to the seizure of ships in consequence of the master failing to comply with the provisions of the various Customs Acts of the said colonies ; such committee to report as early as possible." This matter was a very serious one to those connected with shipping. It seemed that ships were liable to seizure for acts of servants, and the owners at the same time might be entirely innocent or ignorant of anything which had beep done. In the cise referred to he believed Mr. Ellis knew nothing of the matter. It w-»s a trifling case, too. The Customs ofii :er hac gone on board and found .tobacco there which was not accounted for in the usual way. This was a breach of the Act. In New South Wale 3,. he believed, greater latitude was allowed to get goods out of bond than in New Zealand, and so this man had more tobacco than perhaps was necessary for the voyage from Australia to this colony. The consequence was—whether it was owing to the master's conduct or not he could not say—but the ship was seized. Owners did not at all times know the character Of the men they were employing, and a combination perhaps between the master and the seamen if they chose, or if they had a grudge against aud wished to injure the owner—they could, on a trifling case of this kind have the ship seized. He thought, with Mr. Nathan,. that it was monstrous that suqh a law should exist, and he hoped the committee would bring up a strong report. Mr. Aickin- had great pleasure in seconding the resolution proposed by Captain M.cKenziei He hoped the ChambeE would come to an emphatic expression of opinion On this expression pf opinion that would be unmidtakeable. Although there was iiot a large number present, he was sure the opinion would be the expression of the whole community as regards this infamous law. He sa>d "infamous," because it was unjust, Unfair, and not worthy of any British coloby or of British people. He ventured to say that in Russia no suqh. unjust law prevailed as that under which the owner of this vessel had been most unjustly wronged. As stated by Captain McKenzie aud others, it could be made a handle for the most gross injustice to Shipowners. New Zealand was a maritime colony, and this was an important matter to her. Was it likely that shippers from other colonies, or the old country, would open up trade with the colony when their servants could, by soo:e small act on their part, render the owners actually liable to lose their vessels. He thought the thing was so monstrous it did npt require any consideration. He hoped the Auckland members would take the matter up, and endeavour to so change the law nest session as would remedy the evil. Mr. Peacock had. no doubt, presuming it to be a law which only obtained in New Zealand, that action would be taken in the House next sessipn; and that regulations would be made to prevent such an arbitrary exercise of power as in the present case. Mr. Lodder thoroughly endorsed the remarks of the previous speaker. The Act was a disgrace to the Statute-book. Mr. A. Stewart asked if the. law was peculiar to New 2,; aland ? He believed it Was a general thing. He thought the great mistake was in the narrow-mindedness of the officials in acting, as they had. Motion agreed to. AUCKLAND fiAILWAY STATION 1 . Mr. McMillan wished to ask the Chairman a question. He had seen in the Herald, the other day, a reference to a wooden shed Or railway station being erected. He wished to know if there wasjany truth in it ? Perhaps Mr. Peacock might be able to give some information on the point. The statement was simply so absurd that he could hardly give credit to it. That in a city like Auckland, the Government could contemplate or think of such a thing as to erect a wooden railway station, The Ciiaikjian was sorry he had no data to go on. There was a rumour of something of the kind. He was enquiring, but at present he was unable to give any definite information. Mr. McMillan hoped the committee would not lose sight of this matter, but would see that Auckland, got a railway station erected on that Site which would be a credit not only to Aucklandj but to the Australasian colonies. If the committee kept that steadily in view, the object he.had in putting the question would be attained. Mr. Morton moved, " That the Chair-, man telegraph to the Minister for Public

Works, asking him if it Is the intention to land ~a Wo °- n Station 'at AockMr. Peacoce said he woaid take steps 'to' ascertain the..intention of. the Government in, the matter. ~ .. . The Ohajrhan said he cmld only assure them that the committee would do all thev possibly Could, and he for one would watch ealously the interest of this part of the province.