Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 24.pdf/503

 462

The Green Bag

part of the goods. The vital question is the proposition of the bill to make the carrier liable even if he does not receive the goods for bills of lading which have been issued by an agent of the railroad authorized to issue such bills." In this connection the sentiment among shippers has been expressed as follows: — The practice by agents of railroads of issuing bills of lading for cotton not in hand and as acts of accommodation to favored shippers, con joined with the denial by said railroads of responsibility for the acts of their agents, has been largely instrumental in producing condi tions from which great frauds have grown, with resultant loss to individuals and reproach to the American cotton trade. . . . The logical remedy for the abuses in the through cotton billing system lies ... in compelling the carriers to assume the responsibility which under every consideration of justice, equity and fair dealing they should bear."

Competent opinion supports them, how ever.80 Although nine states have passed the Bill of Lading Act, it is obvious that for interstate commerce, which means the great bulk of the commerce of the country, a law is needed to cover the whole subject of interstate and foreign bills. Such a law is the uniform act drawn by this Conference, which was introduced by Senator Pomerene of Ohio, and is known in Congress by his name. At the present writing neither of the bills has been passed, but it is hoped the uniform act will be accepted, inasmuch as it presents a complete code on the subject and is already the law of many of the states. It imposes all the liability on the carriers sought to be imposed by the other bill. A pertinent decision was rendered in Kansas during 1911 21 interpreting the Missouri act and declaring that nego tiability of bills of lading gave them full negotiability. This is a contrary view to that expressed by the Supreme Court of the United States.22 The opinion makes reference to the uniform act.

A modification of the Stevens-Clapp Bill was reported by the Senate Com mittee. It was strenuously opposed as being inadequate and containing de fects and ambiguities.19 Many of the advocates of the StevensClapp Bill supported it because they The Uniform Desertion Act thought it had a better chance of pass This act was amended in Massachu age by reason of its brevity and also setts 23 making provision for the pay because doubts were cast upon the con ment of a probation officer. stitutionality of certain criminal provi sions of the Pomerene Bill, and those 80 "This national and international instrument sections (28-43) relating to dealings in of credit; this national instrument of national and trade and commerce is more than a bills of lading between third parties. international mere document of title. It is more than a mere symbolical representative of the goods. It is itself 17 Argument of Prof. Samuel Williston, Hearings an instrument, with rights attaching to the instru before Senate Committee, p. 17. ment itself and embodied in its terms. Once Con 19 Edmund J. Glenny, President N. O. Cotton gress assumes to regulate that instrument of com merce, to fully protect it and the rights of persons Exchange to Senator Clapp. dealing with such Federal instrument of interstate lf Counsel for shippers in their brief, after point commerce, it would have a right to carry such regu ing out its various defects, say that "The Pomerene lation to its logical conclusion." Argument of Senate Substitute Bill No. 6810 has now been Francis B. James (Hearings before Senate, Feb. 17, enacted in nine states and has worked admirably 1912). See also opinion of Henry W. Taft, Esq., as clearly defining the terms therein used, and has on constitutionality of Clapp-Stevens Bill (Hearings. been conducive to the merchants clearly understand etc., pp. 20 and 22). ing their rights and therefore preventing litigation. "Scoly v. Missouri fire. Ry. Co., 114 Pac. Rep. The shippers are unalterably opposed to the Bill 1077. as reported and in favor of the Pomerene Substi "Shaw v. Railroad Co., 101 U. S. 562. tute Senate Bill No. 6810." (Brief of Francis B. James, Esq., of counsel for shippers.) "Acts of 1912, ch. 264.