416 IOWA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 



That is clear, I think, without any attempt at interpretation, so' that, 

 so far as the live stock shipped for market purposes is concerned, there 

 is no way that the carrier or shipper may contract to limit the liability 

 for less than the actual value. 



There is another important element that this amendment was intended 

 to meet. In many cases there were shipments without any actual written 

 contracts, especially in the case of express shipments; and- now it is re- 

 quired that in shipments under this act there shall be a bill of lading 

 issued, but if there is not, the carrier is* still held to the same degree of 

 liability. 



I don't know whether it is too elementary a matter to treat of, but it 

 is not now necessary for the shipper to try to find out which of the 

 connecting carriers is responsible; all he has to do is to go after the first. 

 At first glance, one might think there^was some unfairness about that, 

 and question whether such a statute could be enforced; whether one 

 should be held for the negligence of another. If the actual damage was 

 done on the cars of a connecting carrier, why should the initial carrier 

 be held Mable? That is disposed of, and there is no question about its 

 being a law and enforcible, for this reason, that the connecting carrier 

 has been held to be simply the agent of the initial carrier. He is the 

 principal in the matter, and the principal is responsible for the acts of 

 his agent in the course of his uuty, within the scope of his authority; so 

 it would be useless to go into an extended discussion of that question. 

 You have only to look to the initial carrier, and if it finds that some 

 other carrier is responsible for the damage, it has its recovery against 

 the connecting parrier who is guilty of the negligence. 



As to the notice to be given, I observe in one of the live stock contracts 

 I have, there is a notice which requires that in case of loss to persons 

 accompanying the stock, a notice is to be given in thirty days. I don't 

 know that this Cummins amendment was intended to cover the caretaker 

 who accompanied the live stock. It was purely directed to the live stock, 

 and the railroads are endeavoring to prepare a contract which will con- 

 form to this law and give them the measure of protection which the law 

 gives. The law provides that no contract shall be enforcible which limits 

 the notice of claim to a shorter period than ninety days, or the filing of 

 claims to a shorter period than four months, or the institution of suits to 

 less than two years; but if the carriers incorporate that in their contract, 

 it will be necessary for you to comply with those limits; otherwise all 

 that will be necessary for the carrier to do is to set up any or all of those 

 things, and you would be shut out of court as to your contention. If the 

 carrier attempts to limit that notice to thirty days, then there is no 

 contract, and you are not required to give the notice at all. 



Now, there is a further pr^dvision in connection with that which almost, 

 as it seems to me, shuts out the carrier from any advantage. This is 

 somewhat qualifying what I said, and in order to submit it in the best 

 language possible, I will quote it: 



"Provided, how-ever, that if the loss, damage or injury complained of 

 was due to delay or damage while being loaded or unloaded, or damage in 

 transit by carelessness or negligence, then no notice of claim nor filing 

 of claim shall be required as a condition precedent to recovery." 



