›r morally bound to stand behind in the event nts. To permit avoidance by such indirection is to emasculate the limitation principle and omically prohibitive risk of unlimited liability. d a claimant gain advantage over the shipowner nging suit in some jurisdiction other than that g is being conducted.

ite all claims in a single forum results not only tious determination of all issues and claimst it eliminates the tremendous waste, both of ting the same issues, with the same witnesses nber of jurisdictions other than the limitation roposed bill is the expense and delay attendant same vessel at such places.

bill before this committee, S. 2313 relating to lision cases, can be summarized as follows: it insurance on cargo carried by American ships. lication falls entirely on the shipowner, not on ships at a distinct and further disadvantage to r no such disability.

witnesses, the present law permits cargo in colent of its damages, half of which is recovered el. Under the proposed law cargo could recover and only in proportion to that vessel's fault. ch both vessels were equally to blame the proessel of the 50 percent liability to its own cargo cial decisions.

antage under the proposed change they would ty from their cargo insurance. Nor would there of premiums paid by cargo owners as a result law. Cargo insurance rates are set on a world e nationality of the carrying vessel. Indeed, owing or controlling the nationality of the vessel go. Since the rest of the world already follows eves a ship from having to contribute to its own rates on all cargo presuppose the application of y received by underwriters in subrogation suits ly a windfall for the cargo insurance companies. or insuring against losses under the general rule very, and then have been allowed such recovery ime, under its protection and indemnity (P. & I.) in shipowner pays for liability insurance cover

is totally unnecessary in the case of the Ameriforeign vessels are not burdened, would be elimi

the nature and extent of the insurance carried rgest single operating cost item in the American -less than wages and fuel, but larger than

anhoistance evnenditures Inlike cargo in.

on to underw
and no one
costs-a por
claims that
recovery by
loss is conce
eliminate th
insurance ra
by the mech

by the fact t
both-to-blan
until reject
hibiting indi
There are
apportionm
out prejudic
First, it
of indirect
of where th
Secondly
perod of ti
the insuran
estimated
potential lo
These are c
premiums
which may

is a comple
the 2-year
I respec
portunity

equitable compensat and waste ican merc Thank

Senato ning, I l shipown Mr. B Senat America

Mr. B After al sengers of the

er

portion of which are unnecessary and duplicative payment that would be eliminated by the proposed bill. By permitti y by cargo against the carrying vessel, the cost of that portion o concentrated on American vessels. The proposed legislation wo te the windfall provided cargo underwriters. That no increas ce rates would result from passage of the bill is demonstrate mechanics of setting rates on a worldwide basis as described act that no increase in cargo insurance premiums followed adop blame clause in American bills of lading in the mid-1930's. T ejected by the courts, had the same effect as the proposed t indirect recovery by cargo against the carrying vessel.

e are two other significant respects in which the proposed collisi onment bill offers direct benefits to the American merchant ma judicing any other sector.

, it increases the effectiveness of concourse by removing th rect recovery which invites cargo to bring suit in this country re the limitation proceeding may be located.

ndly, it requires suits on claims to be brought within 2 ye of time is equitable to all claimants, and at the same time urance costs of shipowners. As the law now stands, shipowners ted losses which may arise from particular accidents as p ial loss experience under their policies covering hull and P. & I. are carried for 5 years and during this entire period shipowner ms calculated in part on these estimated claims which are unlit may never be litigated. Three-fifths of this cost (i.e., 3 out of tl mpletely unnecessary burden on shipowners and would be elimin wear time for suit provision of the proposed bill.

espectfully submit that this proposed legislation presents a ity to benefit all sectors of the American shipping industry ble manner; while increasing and stabilizing the funds a ensate claimants, the bills abolish a heavy load of completely u wasteful, costs and risks which burden and discriminate against merchant marine.

ank you.

nator BARTLETT. To paraphrase that which you said at t , I believe you remarked that these bills would be goo

owners.

r. BURKE. Yes, sir.

enator BARTLETT. Let me ask you this: Would they be go erican public?

r. BURKE. I would say yes. I see no reason why they sl er all, we are all carrying the same passengers. We all gers on our ships, and the passengers would not be hurt he enactment of these two bills if enacted.

They would be much better off, we believe, because of the re would be definite limitation funds for them, where

111

if the abire di

ble job. re convention form there was and there still is some of these conventions. We think that the enabling le s in the form of these two bills greatly improves it an cable for us here in the United States and at the same as a martime nation to be adherents to these two con his point of our being adherents to these two conventio cannot emphasize too strongly the necessity—not t but the necessity of the United States taking her n the maritime world.

ve had the privilege over the past number of years of deal around the world, of trying cases in several fore I have been engaged in litigation in practically every c America. And it was always regrettable to hear the c I there that "we get told everything to do by the Unit ey do not seem to do it themselves. They came down ze our laws”—and their laws are quite shaggy and d rehend for our minds "yet here are conventions wher ome unanimity of thinking throughout the world a its on the sidelines."

ave been repeatedly told by several of the South Americ interests that they are ready to move right in on this on but they would like to see what the United States is d e two countries that they look to are Great Britain and th s. And it would aid all of them in the sense of letting th to do if Great Britain and the United States were sh der.

at not only aids them but it certainly adds to our prest e have already joined the international family through th ife at Sea Convention. We have several more convention which are very vital to us that have to do with nuclear, t o with arrest of ships. How are we going to be able to tige at the conference table on things of such vital ne If we have these other conventions hanging loose and we de at them?

o dwell on one point of committee procedure, and more ord straight, as I mentioned, those in opposition to these dogmatically in opposition to them since the very beg