1893, the Congress of the United States changed the entire policy of the federal courts towards carriers by water by the passage of what is known as the Harter Act. The text of the first three

owner.

money, stamps, maps, writings, or make good to any person, any title deeds, printings, engravings, loss or damage which may happictures, gold or silver plate or pen to any merchandise whatsoplated articles, glass, china, silks ever which shall be shipped, taken in a manufactured or unmanufac- in or put on board any such vestured state, and whether wrought sel, by reason or by means of any up or not wrought up with any fire happening to or on board the other material, furs, or lace or any vessel, unless such fire is caused of them, contained in any par- by the design or neglect of such cel or package or trunk, shall lade the same as freight or baggage on any vessel, without at the time of such lading giving to the master, clerk, agent or owner of such vessel receiving the same a written notice of the true character and value thercof, and having the same entered on the bill of lading therefor, the master and owner of such vessel shall not be liable as carriers thereof in any form or manner; nor shall any such master or owner be liable for any such goods beyond the value and according to the character thereof so notified and entered.

See Wheeler v. Navigation Co., 125 N. Y. 155; Carlson v. Oceanic Steam Nav. Co., 109 N. Y. 362; Ocean Steamship Co. v. Way, 90 Ga. 751; Calderon v. Steamship Co., 170 U. S. 272, reversing 69 Fed. 574, 16 C. C. A. 332, 35 U. S. App. 587 and 64 Fed. 874; The St. Cuthbert, 97 Fed. 341; The Bermuda, 29 Fed. 399.

This section does not apply to a passenger's baggage. La Bourgoyne, 144 Fed. 781.

C. C. A.

Sec. 4282. No owner of any vessel shall be liable to answer for

See Constable v. National Steamship Co., 154 U. S. 62, 14 Sup. Ct. R. 1062, 38 L. Ed. 903; Steamship Co. v. Hill Mfg. Co. 109 U. S. 587; In re Old Dominion Steamship Co., 115 Fed. 845; The City of Clarkville, 94 Fed. 201; The Strathdon, 89 Fed. 378; The Rapid Transit, 52 Fed. 320; Heye v. North German Lloyd, 33 Fed. 70; The Garden City, 26 Fed. 769; The Marine City, Fed. 415; The San Rafael, 141 Fed. 270, C. C. A.

modifying 134 Fed. 749. Sec. 4283. The liability of the owner of any vesel for any embezzlement, loss or destruction by any person of any property, goods or merchandise, shipped or put on board of such vessel, or for any loss, damage or injury by collision, or for any act, matter or thing, loss, damage or forfeiture, done, occasioned or incurred, without the privity or knowledge of such owner or owners, shall in no case exceed the amount or value of the interest of such owner in such vessel and her freight then pending.

See O'Brien v. Miller, 168 U. S. 303; The Chattahoochee, 173 U. S.

Sec. 4284. Whenever any such embezzlement, loss or destruction is suffered by several freighters or owners of goods, wares, merchandise or any property whatever, on the same voyage, and the whole value of the vessel and her freight for the voyage is not sufficient to make compensation to each of them, they shall receive compensation from the owner of the vessel in proportion to their respective losses; and for that purpose the freighters and owner of the property and the owner of the vessel or any of them may take the appropriate proceedings in any court for the purpose of apportioning the sum for which the owner of the vessel may be liable, among the parties entitled thereto.

554, aff'g 74 Fed. 899, 21 C. C. A. ing, 48 Fed. 471; The Anna, 47 162; The Main v. Williams, 152 Fed. 526; The City of Para, 44 U. S. 128; In re Morrison, 147 U. Fed. 691. S. 34; Craig v. Continental Ins. Co., 141 U. S. 645; Butler v. Steamship Co., 130 U. S. 558; The Manitoba, 122 U. S. 111; The City of Norwich, 118 U. S. 503; The Scotland, 118 U. S. 518; The Mamie, 110 U. S. 742; Steamship Co. v. Hill Mfg. Co., 109 U. S. 589; Lord v. Steamship Co., 102 U. S. 543; The Benefactor, 103 U. S. 243; The City of Hartford, 97 U. S. 323; The Virginia Ehrman, 97 U. S. 317; Norwich Co. v. Wright, 13 Wall. (U. S.) 121; The Tommy, 142 Fed. 1034; The Harry Hudson Smith, C. C. A. 142 Fed. 724; In re Pacific Mail S. S. Co., 130 Fed. 76, 64 C. C. A. 410, 69 L. R. A. 71; Weisshaar v. Kimball S. S. Co., 128 Fed. 397, 63 C. C. A. 139, 65 L. R. A 84, reversing, In re Kimball S. S. Co., 123 Fed. 838; The Cygnet, 126 Fed. 742, 61 C. C. A. 348; Gleason v. Duffy, 116 Fed. 301; In re Old Dominion S. S. Co., 115 Fed. 849; Parsons v. Empire Transp. Co., 111Fed. 208; The George W. Roby, 111 Fed. 601, 49 C. C. A. 481; The Eureka, 108 Fed. 672; The La Bourgoyne, 104 Fed. 823; The Longfellow, 104 Fed. 363; The Jane Grey, 99 Fed. 591, s. c. 95 Fed. 693; In re Piper Aden Goodall Co., 86 Fed. 670; The Colima, 82 Fed. 679; The Annie Faxon, 75 Fed. 312, 21 C. C. A. 366, 44 U. S. App. 591; The H. F. Dimock, 77 Fed. 238; The Columbia, 73 Fed. 226, 44 U. S. App. 326, 19 C. C. A. 436; The Republic, 61 Fed. 109, 9 C. C. A. 386, aff'g 57 Fed. 240; Quinlan . Pen, 56 Fed. 119; The Rosa, 53 Fed. 132; The Giles Lor

See O'Brien v. Miller, 168 U. S. 306; The City of Norwich, 118 U. S. 491; Butler v. Steamship Co., 130 U. S. 551; Ex. p. Slayton, 105 U. S. 452; The La Bourgoyne, 117 Fed. 264; The M. Moran, 107 Fed. 526; The Eureka No. 32, 108 Fed. 673; The S. A. McCaulley, 99 Fed. 203; The Catskill, 95 Fed. 702; In re Harris, 57 Fed. 245; The H. F. Dimock, 52 Fed. 600.

Sec. 4285. It shall be deemed a sufficient compliance on the part of such owner with the requirements of this title relating to his liability for any embezzlement, loss or destruction of any property, goods or merchandise, if he shall transfer his interest in such vessel and freight for the benefit of such claimants to a trustee to be appointed by any court of com

sections of that act is given in full in the notes. Before the passage of the act, the owner could not contract against his liability and that of his vessel for loss occasioned by negligence or fault in the officers and crew, because such a contract was

held by the federal courts to be contrary to public policy, and, in this particular the owners of American vessels were at a disadvantage as compared with the owners of foreign vessels, who could at that time contract with shippers against any liability for negligence or fault on the part of the officers and crew. This inequality, of course, operated unfavorably on the American

"Sec. 2. That it shall not be lawful for any vessel transporting merchandise or property from or between ports of the United States of America and foreign ports, her owner, master, agent, or manager, to insert in any bill of lading or shipping document any covenant or agreement whereby the obligation of the owner or owners of said vessel to exercise due diligence [to] properly equip, man, provision, and outfit said vessel, and to make said vessel seaworthy and capable of perform- such service." ing her intended voyage, or

ship owner and Congress saw fit to remove the disadvantage, not by declaring that it should be competent for the owners of vessels to exempt themselves from liability for the faults of the master and crew by stipulations to that effect contained in bills of lading, but by enacting that, if the owner exercised due diligence in making their ships seaworthy and in duly manning and equipping them, there should be no liability for the navigation and management of the ships, however faulty.8

Sec. 346. Statute similar to Harter Act enacted in Great Britain in 1900.-In 1900 the Parliament of Great Britain passed an amendment to the Merchant Shipping Act of 1894, by which it was enacted that "the limitation of the liability of the owners of any ship set by section 503 of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1894 in respect of loss of or damage to vessels, goods, merchandise, or other things shall extend and apply to all cases where (without their actual fault or privity) any loss or damage is caused to property or rights of any kind, whether on land or on water, or whether fixed or moveable, by reason of the improper navigation or management of the ship." The laws of Great Britain and the United States, therefore, are substantially similar at this time upon this subject.

Sec. 347. To what vessels and property Harter Act applies. The Harter Act applies to all vessels transporting merchandise to and from any port of the United States, situated upon any navigable waters, inland or otherwise, over which the federal government has jurisdiction.10 The third section

8. The Irrawaddy, 171 U. S. 187, 18 Sup. Ct. 831, 43 L. Ed. 130.

The

The Harter Act was not retroactive in its provisions. Energia, 66 Fed. 605, 13 C. C. A. 653, 35 U. S. App. 6; aff'g Insurance Co. v. The Energia, 61 Fed. 222 and Phillips v. The Energia, 56 Fed. 124. See also to the same effect: Humboldt, etc., Ass'n v. Christopherson, 73 Fed. 239, 19 C. C. A. 481, 46 L. R. A. 264.

9. 63 & 64 Vict., C. 32.

Charterers of a vessel for a short period are not its "owners" within the meaning of the above statute and are not entitled to a limitation of liability under its terms. The Steam Hopper, No. 66, 75 L. J. P. 22.

10. In re Piper Aden Goodall Co., 86 Fed. 670.