Chapter XXXIX: Section 3: And be it further enacted, That the liability of the

owner or owners of any ship or vessel for any embezzlement, loss, or distinction by the master, officers, mariners, passengers, or any other person or persons of any property, goods, or merchandise shipped or put on board of such ship or 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 or owners respectively in such ship or vessel, and her freight then pending.

IX. Statutes at Large, ch. xliii., page 635.

(M. 1266.)

Manor House, Shepperton, Middlesex,
26th February, 1867.

SIR,

I have to acknowledge receipt of your letter of yesterday’s date, with copy of a despatch and inclosures, received through the Foreign Office from her Majesty’s Minister at Washington. By these documents it would appear that the laws of the United States of America, so far as regards the responsibility of British Shipowners in their courts, are the same as they were in 1860, and that, practically, our responsibility is there still unlimited. This is a very unsatisfactory state of things, and, as I have already explained to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, might produce the most disastrous results to some of our Shipowners in their intercourse with the United States. I, therefore, trust that the Board of Trade may be induced to use its best efforts to obtain as soon as possible a convention, whereby our ships frequenting the ports of the United States may, so far as regards responsibility, be placed upon the same footing as we have now placed in all our courts the vessels belonging to that country.

I am, Sir, your obedient servant,

W. S. LINDSAY.

To the ASSISTANT SECRETARY,
Marine Department, Board of Trade.

(M. 1766.)

Board of Trade, Whitehall,
6th March, 1867.

SIR,

I am directed by the Board of Trade to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 26th ultimo, stating, with reference to the question of the liability of British Shipowners in the United States, that that liability appears to be practically unlimited, and trusting that this Board may take steps to obtain complete reciprocity.

In reply, I am to point out to you that the principle of limited liability has been adopted in the Federal Courts, and is applied in all the Federal Courts of the United States—_i.e._ in all Admiralty and Vice Admiralty Courts, to foreign as well as American ships.

It seems true, however, that an injured person may possibly maintain an action against the owner of an offending vessel in a State Court, and it must depend on the law of each State in that case, whether the measure of damages would be limited. But not to mention the difficulty of first ascertaining, and procuring the alteration of the law of each State, it is to be observed that to maintain such action the owner of the offending vessel must be found within the jurisdiction of the State Court. This, in fact, amounts to a practical limitation, seeing that he has all the advantages of limited liability so long as he keeps away from the United States, or is not to be found within the jurisdiction of the court in question.

I am, Sir, your obedient servant,

THOMAS GRAY.

To W. S. LINDSAY, Esq.,
Manor House, Shepperton, Middlesex.

(M. 1766.)

Shepperton, Middlesex, 14th March, 1867.

SIR,

I have to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 6th inst., but it is very little satisfaction to know that the principle of limited liability is applied in all the Federal Courts of the United States to British Shipowners, whilst in all the State Courts of that country their responsibility is altogether unlimited. To say that they have the advantages of limited liability, so long as they keep away from the ports of that country, is to suggest that if we wish to avoid unlimited responsibility, we must renounce our carrying-trade with America.

The Board of Trade would also appear to be under the impression that there is so little chance of any serious claim ever being made, that the alteration of the law of the States is of little consequence to us, and that it is not worthy of the trouble it would involve; but a case in point has just come under my notice which signally illustrates the force of the remonstrative observations I have ventured to make.

The screw steam-ship _Keder_, belonging to Messrs. G. and I. Burns, of Glasgow, and their partners, sailed from New York 31st August, 1864, and on the following day came into collision with the _Czarina_, an American barque, of from 500 to 600 tons, which had on board a cargo of sulphur, shumac, and fruit. The _Czarina_ was abandoned in a sinking state. As the evidence shows that the _Keder_ was not to blame, the owners of that vessel hoped that nothing more would be heard of the matter; but only a few days ago they received a letter from Sir Edward Cunard, their correspondent at New York, stating that he had just been called upon to give bond for one hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars, on account of the cargo of the _Czarina_, and adding that he had also been called upon to give bond for the vessel, though the amount in the latter case is not mentioned. It is estimated that the value put on the _Czarina_ and cargo will be something like 40,000_l._ Supposing the _Keder_ to be in fault, her liability, according to British law, would be restricted to 8_l._ per ton of her own gross tonnage, viz. 14,264_l._, whereas, according to the law of the State of New York, she may be held liable in this case for 40,000_l._, being more than double her value; and if the _Czarina_ and cargo had been more valuable than they are stated to be, the liability of the owner of the _Keder_ would of course have been correspondingly increased. In a word, _it would have been practically without limit_.

I am aware that there may be some difficulty in obtaining an alteration of the law, but this ought not to be any obstacle when the interests at stake are so very large and of so grave a character. If the proper representation is made, I think the Government of the United States cannot now hesitate to place our vessels in _all_ their courts on the same terms as we have recently placed their vessels in all our courts, and if the executive is prepared to enter into a convention, having that object in view, it will no doubt be confirmed by Congress.

I am, Sir, your obedient servant,

W. S. LINDSAY.

To the ASSISTANT SECRETARY,
Marine Department, Board of Trade.

_Note._—This correspondence was not at all satisfactory
to me, but as I was then in a very precarious state of health,
I sent copies of it to Mr. John Burns, whose firm (the Cunard
Company) was more deeply interested in the matter to which it
refers than any other. He followed it up with his usual energy and
ability, and through his exertions the responsibility of British
Shipowners has now been limited in the _States_, as well as
in the Federal Courts of the United States of America, to the same
extent as the Shipowners of that country would be held liable in
an action, through loss at sea by collision or otherwise, brought
against them in this country. See Parliamentary Papers, ‘British
Ships in American Waters,’ No. 236, 17th May, 1871; and ‘United
States Liability of Shipowners’ Collision,’ No. 173, 18th May,
1874.

W. S. L.