THE New Zealand Herald. AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 1883.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XX, Issue 6816, 21 September 1883, Page 4

THE New Zealand Herald. AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 1883.

| The question of bills of lading was th.e I. subject; of warm, interest at the meeting on Wednesday of the Auckland Chamber of Commerce. At the instance of the Marine Underwriters of Australia, in conference assembled, concerted action is about to be taken by the various Australasian Chambers of Commerce with reference to the terms and conditions of these instruments, as imposed by the ocean steam companies trading with the colonies. Briefly put, these companies contract themselves out of almost all liability in connection with goods conveyed by them. Some of these conditions are curious. For example, the Orient Company exempts itself from liability for loss or damage from coaling on the voyage,, rust ■, vermin, leakage., breakage, for heat of holds, for accident to, or defects in, hull, , tackle, boilers, or machinery, or their : appurtenances, for default or error in judgment of the master, mariners, engineers, and others in the service of the owners, and a variety of other causes of loss or damage to goods, with which

shippers can have no possible connec--1 tion whatever. From a perusal of one of these instruments, it is clear that shipowners intend to stand free of every liability as carriers, for,, if defective hull and machinery, and the blunders of officers, are not to count for anything, it would be hard to see where responsibility can come in. From the customers' point of view a very strong case is made out, for under such conditions the owners of goods conveyed are simply at the mercy of the carriers. There is, doubtless, another side of the question; for sometimes shipowners have been tin-

mercifully "had," and bogus claims I for damages have driven them to combination. While, therefore, we cannot but sympathise with the helpless position in which importers are placed in being compelled to sign contracts of such a. kind, nullifying almost every claim against those in whose hands goods are placed for transit, it must be remembered that the Australian colonies have furnished very many cases of particularly sharp practice, which have been quite enough to inertc shipowners to take as extreme measures as they could for their own protection. Indeed it is not difficult to see why shipowners may be disposed to think that the Carriers' Act, or the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, could not be applied so- readily to : ocean-borne goods as to inland traffic.: In the latter case the whole conduct of the conveyance is, if not under the eye, at least within the reach of all concerned, and wrongful claims can be much more readily traced and investigated ; whereas, when packages are rolled into the London docks and hurried on board without examination, and sent away to the uttermost ends of the earth, the difficulties of comparing their condition when received and delivered, inustbegreatly enhanced, even if circumstances had not already occurred in some of the other Australian colonies to prove that colonial life has the capacity for developing various forms of Conjmercial cleverness. This is the question, viewed from the shipowners' point of view, and this aspect of it may have had much to do in suggesting the combination which has apparently been entered into by all the companies, and will not improbably have the effect of raising opposition to giving effect to the proposals which have commended themselves to the various Chambers of Commerce.

At the same time the means taken by the steam companies for their own protection are so extreme as to fully warrant the action that hag been taken by the Chamber of Commerce. It is intolerable that any company should take goods in charge withoutbeingheld liable . for their safe keeping, when it goes to the length of disclaiming responsibility for the. rottenness of hulls and tackle,, and even the blunders, and incapacity of its own servants; and. such a contract : as that forced upon shippers bears its own condemnation on its face. Though a steamship company has not that monopoly in a line of traffic which is possessed by the owners of a railway or canal, the principle of responsibility for trust is at least as applicable as it is to the owners of drays and express vans carrying on the Queen's highway. It is not in return for exceptional privileges conferred on common carriers that they are held responsible for the safe keeping of goods entrusted to them, and there is not an argument in favour of holding them responsible by law that is not of equal force in favour of responsibility being attached by law to carriers on the great highway of the world ; and there is very little doubt, if the movement of the Chambers of Commerce is only wisely I guided, that Imperial legislation can be moved, in face of the outrageous claims to immunity preferred by the steamship companies; It is strange, that such a question should require to be raised at this hour. Wo see the keenest competition among" the owners of powerful

nv f\ lmes of ocean traffic a if™S to cut out the other 2 obtain the best footing with' * tomers,. and the largfst share * ,rade; and . yet they all .sink tW differences for .the moment and 5, bine to jointly enforce oppressive conditions on their customers. I n ft. nature of things such a combination * this must sooner or later break down m the. face of increasing competition But combination is best met bv comv* nation and if importers throughout the colonies only make common can* they are masters of: the situation and can rectify fche wrong even v/ith out the aid. of Imperial legislation Tf is true,, legislation is the simplest and most, effective remedy, and the most permanent, in its effects; but we ventl to say that all-powerful as the steam owning interests are in London noT considerable difficulty and delay wS attend the success of the effort to have the matter brought within reguMcnotla*. If, Sow«e r ,T a f meantime, the effort have the effect of combining the merchants and Cham bers of Commerce in resistance to. the wrongful pretensions of the shippi n f companies. some joint action may suggest itself that will tend to breaking up the combination in which the com* pames have so openly banded W sol T e3 together, against the interests and the rights of their own customed and supporters.