goods must go by that ship, as I understand it. Now, in case that ship is full and cannot take my goods, and they have to wait until the next ship, that is all right enough, and is so provided in the bill of lading. The question is, whether the exact voyage means a voyage in one ship or another at the option of the ship-owner, or whether it does not mean a voyage by the particular ship named in the bill.

Mr. HIGGINS: I do not think any gentleman who has owned ships (and I believe Mr. WETHERILL has been a ship-owner or manager) can imagine that the words "which does not clearly specify the exact voyage intended to be made, and any and every port at which it is contemplated she shall touch," can be made to mean "which does not clearly specify the exact vessel on which the goods are to go, and the voyage which she is intended to make." That would be the language which it should have, in order to bear the interpretation you give.

Mr. WETHERILL: It ought to be clear.

Mr. HIGGINS: That very point was brought up, and this clausė was constructed so as not to interfere with that exercise of the option of putting goods on one vessel or another.

Mr. WETHERILL: Why should it not be so specified in the bill, so that there may be no mistake?

Mr. HIGGINS: There is not the slightest objection; but a bill ought to be made as simple as possible; and when you enact certain prohibitions you ought not to have too many permissions at the same time. We have prohibited the issuing of any bill not specifying an exact voyage. That is prohibited. Everything else is included in the permission. It is very much better for the ship-owners not to have specific cases of permission. If you undertake to set out specific permissions, you may limit the vessel to those permissions. We only wanted to specify the distinct prohibitions, and those prohibitions are limited, in this clause, to an exact description of the voyage. That is to say, it was intended particularly if the voyage was from London to New York, that the vessel should not have the privilege of going to Halifax, or St. Thomas, or some other point that the shipper knows nothing about. It was for the protection of those who send goods from

clearance until they make the bills of lading conform to the statute; and then they will do so.

Mr. PARSONS, of Detroit: I should like to ask one question; it is this: Do you have recourse on the railway or the ocean steamer?

Mr. MILNE: The bills of lading issued in the West, limit the railway company to losses accruing while the property is under its care, and subject to the conditions set forth in the bill governing inland transportation. If the goods are damaged at sea, and the railway can show a clear receipt from the steamship company, it is released, and we must have recourse on the vessel, under the stipulations printed in the bili of lading and agreed to by the shipper, which are practically worth nothing.

Mr. PARSONS: If there is a shortage of a thousand bushels of grain, to whom do you have recourse?

Mr. MILNE: We have recourse on the ship; and under the stipulations of the bill of lading we get nothing at all. I can state a case within my own experience where on a shipment of sixteen thousand bushels we lost five per cent. The property went through the city of New York, and by the receipts given to the railroad company by the steamship company, they received all of it within a half of one per cent. The latter made the delivery short nearly five per cent.; and upon making our claim against the ship for the loss, we were politely pointed to the conditions in the bill of lading which exempted it from all liability. So we are out just that amount; hence our anxiety to have the West included in this bill.

Mr. GANO, of Cincinnati: I wish to ask a question with regard to the responsibility of vessels, and it is this: An effort was made by owners of vessels on some of our western rivers, to limit their responsibility to the value of the vessel, so that the owner of a vessel shall not be responsible beyond its value.

Mr. HIGGINS: That is now the statute law of the United States. It was passed in 1856.

Mr. GANO: It followed the destruction of a boat on the Ohio River by fire, and the heavy lawsuits which arose from the losses

Mr. SNOW, of New York: I think it is hardly worth while for us to go into a lengthy discussion as to all the liabilities of shipowners. This is a bill now before Congress. It has been perfected as far as it could be perfected by the gentlemen who have had it in charge. Very intelligent attention has been given to it. It certainly does not make the matter any worse for gentlemen in the interior. They are as well protected under this bill as they ever were; perhaps better protected. We are asked here by the Chamber of Commerce to say as a National Board that we approve this bill; that is, that we are in favor of the passage of the bill as it is now before the House. We might discuss various clauses for a long time, but still that would hardly expedite the business in hand, which is to get a modified bill of lading such as these gentlemen have endeavored to have made. I think the Board might fairly say that they are in favor of this resolution as it is presented. It simply says we are in favor of the bill now before the House. It is a step forward to protect all the parties interested. If it is found not to be a perfect protection, it will be susceptible of amendment hereafter.

Mr. WETHERILL, of Philadelphia: I should like to ask Mr. HIGGINS a question so that I can understand this bill. It comes from the Chamber of Commerce, of New York. Mr. HIGGINS stated that a committee from the Chamber of Commerce and a committee from the Produce Exchange had taken the matter under consideration and had prepared this bill.

Mr. HIGGINS: No, sir; they had prepared forms of bills of lading which they were hoping to get the lines to adopt.

Mr. WETHERILL: Have they had this bill under discussion?

Mr. HIGGINS: Oh yes.

Mr. WETHERILL: With what conclusion?

Mr. HIGGINS: The Chamber of Commerce approved it unanimously. It has not been referred to any other body except by a circular letter.

Mr. WETHERILL: Has it not been approved by the New York Produce Exchange?

Mr. HIGGINS: No, sir, it never has been under discussion there hat I am aware of.