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

228 COMITE MARITIME INTERNATIONALThe Travaux Préparatoires of the Hague and Hague-Visby Rulesthat he is not to pay freight on that, but nevertheless here the shipowner is to be liablefor the weight of iron with sand attached to it as if it was the iron. You all know the circumstancesabout charter parties. I have gone through practically every frequentlyused charter party and I find that every charter party contains a stipulation that billsof lading are to contain “weight unknown” and that applies not only in cases wherethe charter is an agreed document, but also where merchants have their own documents.For instance to refer to the Rio Tinto Company in London, who are responsiblefor the transport of a large quantity of ore, [339] they have their own charter partieswhich they dictate, and in their charter party they have “weight unknown” or “notresponsible for weight”. The Norsk Hydro-Elektrisk Kvaelstofaktieselskab, Kristiania,who are responsible for large quantities of nitrate for Norway have the same thing.They have “contents, weight and measure unknown”. There also is a merchant’s charterparty dictated by himself. The Hamburg nitrate charter party of 1891 has the sameand the nitrate charter party of E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co. who are responsiblefor transport from Chile to U.S.A. has a stipulation “weight and quality unknown, allon board to be delivered”, and it is important to observe that in the grain transportationfrom Australia which is being conducted under the auspices of the AustralianGovernment under conditions dictated by the Government (last year practically all thegrain from Australia was being transported under their auspices) the bills of lading hadthe following words “weight, measure, contents, condition, quality unknown”.What I want to get at is this. We say that that is a condition that has been acceptedby both sides all along and without any objection. I think it would be simple and itshould be possible to introduce a clause into the Rules that it shall be legal forshipowners to put into the bill of lading stipulations such as the one the AustralianGovernment has put in itself, namely, “weight, quantity, measure, contents, condition,quality unknown”, and I would say that if that is done then one of the greatest objectionsto these Rules as they stand from the tramps point of view would be removed.[340]Mr. Louis Franck: I think nobody has contemplated rendering these clauses void.(Yes). Is it contemplated that the clause “weight unknown” or “number unknown”shall be void?Sir Norman Hill: Yes, all gone.[351]Sir Norman Hill: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .As to the clause “weight unknown” the reply is this: I quite understand that accordingto Continental practice the bill of lading is evidence of what it contains, butthere is nothing in Continental practice to day which prohibits the shipowner fromrecording that weight is unknown, so the result is that the bill of lading in the handsof the holder is conclusive evidence that the shipowner did not know the weight. I canunderstand that a shipowner would be quite ready to accept that responsibility. Oneof the main objects of the Rules, and it is in force in the United States, and in force inCanada, and it will be whatever we do here in force in some way throughout the BritishEmpire, is that we are going to be forbidden to qualify our engagements. It is going tobe evidence against us in the hands of a bona fide holder that we got what we signedfor. If that is so under the methods that are now employed, is it possible for the [352]cargo owners to ask us to assume more than a presumption against us, that it shouldbe prima facie evidence that we got it. Take the case of the petroleum. The suppliers ofthe petroleum report that they had pumped in so many gallons; the machinery is undertheir control; we cannot supervise it; we sign for that number of gallons; it is pri-