EIGHTEENTH ANNUAL YEAR BOOK — PART VII «t 



That would not affect the question if they introduced it in their con- 

 tract, as I understand it. These are opinions, because there are no ad- 

 judications upon this act so far as I Icnow. It was passed in August, 

 1916, so that the United States supreme court would hardly get to it in 

 this space of time, and we can only give opinions, which can not possibly 

 be authority on the question, because they are not backed up by authority. 

 But there is this to be said about tlfat final clause, that there must be 

 negligence on the part of the carrier if there is a basis of recovery at all 

 in the question of live stock. If the carrier is shut out as to notice of claim 

 ar^d the filing of claim on account of his own negligence, the shipper is 

 practically protected on those grounds, and even if he fails to give notice 

 within ninety days, or to file the claim within four months, when that is 

 incorporated in the live stock contract, then the chances are that he still 

 has his day in court, because the loss would in all probability be due to 

 the act of the carrier or its agents. But it will be an unsafe proposition 

 for a man to depend on that; if it is in the contract, it is just as well to 

 comply with it. I would suggest that if the contract called for thirty days, 

 even if it was in violation of the law, thirty days would be a reasonable 

 time; not because I think that such a clause in the contract would be 

 enforcible under this amendment, but for the very reason that you can't 

 be too prompt in filing claims. It is no use delaying the thing as long 

 as you can, and it is possible that if you have someone do it for you, it 

 will be jverlooked. There will be the other reaction that it will render 

 the carrier a little more vigilant in handling live stock freight. 



In reference to the filing of claims, there are one or two suggestions: 

 First, that of promptness; second, when there is a notice of claim filed, it 

 is always well enough to protect yourself by a sufficient claim; there is no 

 very great danger of your getting too much. The amount can easily be 

 cut down, but it is a very difficult matter to raise a claim, and the 

 chances are that in the first consideration of the matter yoli may have 

 overlooked some of the damages to which you are entitled. Then, that 

 claim ought to be based upon very carefully recorded information. The 

 trouble with most people (and this is a general trouble, not peculiar to 

 any class of business men) is that we don t preserve our information in 

 such a fashion as will enable us to present it in the best form. In my 

 experience in going over the evidence with clients and witnesses, I have 

 never been able to get in the first interview, however protracted, all the 

 evidence that they were capable of producing. I have found that on going 

 over the matter with them the second and even the third time, there are 

 always matters that will be developed and information of vital importance 

 to the case, that they have not appreciated before. That is one reason 

 why it is very necessary that the amount claimed should be liberal rather 

 than conservative, because it can be cut down. 



There is another question as to what damage a man is entitled to. 

 I have had quite a large number of questions submitted by farmers, 

 both in writing and in personal interviews, as to the damage to which 

 they are entitled for breach of contract or some wrong that has been 

 committed against them. Generally they have an idea that they are 

 27 



