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

450 COMITE MARITIME INTERNATIONALThe Travaux Préparatoires of the Hague and Hague-Visby RulesThe freight system of Mr. De Rousiers may be all right if you multiply it by a very highfigure. If you say twenty times the freight, that is all right; but if you say once, or twice,or three times the freight, that is absolutely no good.As to the question of cubic foot and weight measurement, you must remember thatyou have afterwards the words “whichever is the least”. That is a trick according towhich the shipowners is responsible for practically nothing, because a case of silk doesnot weight much, and is not many cubic feet; and when you have put your ratio betweencubic foot and package, and so on, and you apply it to the value of the goods, itdoes not work. Make it clear; put what you like per cubic foot and hundredweight, aslong as you make it clear that in no case shall the responsibility per package be less than£100. It must be understood that what you say about cubic foot and hundredweightwill not in any way influence the responsibility per package; the shipowner will not beable to say: “Here is a package which is lost, but I am not responsible for £100 becausethe package weighs only so many pounds; therefore I am only responsible for £3 15s”.You must make that quite clear.The Hon. John McEwan Hunter: Mr. Chairman. I think perhaps we might adoptthe suggestion of the previous speaker on my [165] right, Mr. De Rousiers, and seewhether we could not find some multiple that we could adopt. It seems to me to solvethe money problem, the future value and the whole of the difficulties that have beenraised by the last speaker. If we could defer the matter, either to a Committee or discussionamongst ourselves, I think that we should find in that the solution of the difficultieswith which we are faced. I quite understand that we must fix the maximum,and fix the maximum high. That does not mean that with a parcel of small value a largersum would be collected than its value, but the protection which the last speakerasked for, and which I think should be given, could be ascertained and safeguarded bymaking the maximum as high as possible.Third day’s proceedings - 1 September 1921The Chairman: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[173]Yesterday afternoon the Committee found itself in something like an impasse byreason of the divergence of opinion upon Article IV, clause 4, imposing limitation of liability.I think there was a general view that the language of the draft with the proposedamendments, and, indeed, without the proposed amendments, was not quite so clear asthe Committee would have desired. Sir Norman Hill was in possession of the subject atthe time, and he has handed me this morning an alternative to the proposed amendmentswhich he produced yesterday, which it is desirable, I think, that I should read tothe Committee. He proposes to omit the first paragraph in 4, and to substitute for it thisparagraph: “Unless the nature and value of the goods have been declared by the shipperbefore the goods are shipped, and have been inserted in the bill of lading, neitherthe carrier nor the ship shall be responsible in any event for loss or damage to or in connectionwith the goods for an amount greater than (a) a sum equal to (so many) times”- he has left that blank - “the freight charged for carriage by sea of the goods lost or damagedascertained on the basis upon which the freight rate is calculated in the contractof carriage, or (b) the value of such goods, whichever of such amounts shall be theleast”. That is Sir Norman Hill’s amended proposal. It would provide a new basis fordiscussion, but the principle involved in it was discussed yesterday. I think, as Sir NormanHill was in charge of the amendment which is before the Committee, he is entitledto ask the leave of the Committee to substitute this proposal for his previous proposal.The question is whether Sir Norman Hill shall have the leave of the Committee to makea substituted proposal. Does the Committee agree? (Agreed).