the travaux préparatoires hague rules hague-visby rules - Comite ...

PART II - HAGUE RULES 223Article 3 (4) (1st paragraph) - Prima facie evidencebe revised for us, before we finally adopt the rules, by the Drafting Committee. It ismerely a provisional adoption. It refers the words to the Drafting Committee.[103]Mr. Knottenbelt: Then I should like it to be noted in the Report that the Dutchshipowners do not agree with this Article.The Chairman: The Secretary will note that.Mr. Knottenbelt: They think the French will do the same. Mr. De Rousiers will perhapsbe speaking about that for the French people, because it is against the principlesof French law.Mr. Dor: I think the words “bulk cargo” are somewhat misleading, and if therewere substituted the words “full cargo” there would be no difficulty whatever. (No,no). I may point out that in the French Bill, to which I have already alluded, you willfind in Article 4 that it is provided that “Charter-parties, which apply to one-half atleast of the cargo, will not be submitted to the provisions of the Bill”, so that wheneverthere is a charter-party, applying at least to one-half of the cargo, it will be excludedfrom the scope of the Bill.Mr. C. R. Dunlop, K.C.: Might I suggest as an amendment to clause 4: “Such a billof lading issued in respect of all goods” - using the word “goods” instead of “cargoes”;the word “goods” being the word used in the preceding section - “issued in respect ofall goods other than goods shipped in bulk”; and then have the definition of bulkgoods, which will be an inclusive, but not an exhaustive, definition, following the definitionsthat we are getting in Article 1. That, I understand, would meet with the approvalof the tramp shipowners.The Chairman: I think the Committee will agree that that is a most businesslikesuggestion on Mr. Dunlop’s part. What does Sir Norman Hill say about it?Sir Norman Hill: I welcome it, Sir.The Chairman: Very good. Then the amendment will be put in these terms: to insertafter the words “bill of lading” the words “issued in respect of all goods other thangoods shipped in bulk as herein defined” or “hereinafter defined”, stipulating thatthere should be a definition. The question is that after the words “bill of lading” thewords “issued in respect of all goods other than goods shipped in bulk, as in these rulesdefined”, be inserted.Mr. Rudolf: I think the only thing as regards that is, that when one makes amendmentsone ought to do it with one’s eyes wide open. I think we are running directlycounter to the terms of the Harter [104] Act, and I think it is a very important question,particularly in connection with grain cargoes.Mr. Cleminson: It would have been a great advantage if we had had an Americanlawyer here, but I do not think we are running contrary to the spirit of the AmericanAct. I was looking at the 1916 Act only yesterday, and they draw a big distinction betweenthe class of case where the shipowner takes charge of the loading, and the classof case where the shipper takes charge of the loading. I think in cases of full cargoesall the shipping arrangements are in the hands of the charterer or the shipper. In thecase of coal the certificates are under the control of the coal shipper, and in the case ofgrain the certificates are in the hands of the merchants. It is covered, I think, by theprinciple, and I do not think we ought to meet any difficulty on the American side.The Chairman: Does any other member offer any observations? Then the questionis that after the words “bill of lading” there be inserted these words “issued in respectof all goods other than goods shipped in bulk as in these rules defined”. Is it the pleasureof the Committee that those words be inserted? (Agreed).Sir Norman Hill: Did you alter the other words?The Chairman: Sir Norman Hill has a further amendment.