BROKERAGE AND COMMISSION.

our opinion, be held by one person. Vice-Consuls, when not Did a salary by the State, are allowed to trade in any business they please. 2nd. He could not be prevented from doing so unless by the intervention of the Foreign Office. 3rd. If a Vice-Consul is not paid for the hire of an office he must conduct the business in his own room. 4th. To the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. 5th. D. Frederico Jolly, of Huelva, in the "Digest of Spanish Customs Laws," publishes the Table of Consular Fees. 6th. If the Vice-Consul is paid for a duty which he does not properly perform the fee should be returned.]

SIR,-We have a foreign cargo arrived, and by the Charterparty it is addressed to Charterers' Agents at Port of discharge, free of Commission. We, as Charterers' Agents, claim the right of reporting the ship at Customs, and charging the usual fee, while the Captain, who says he is instructed by his Owner, puts himself in the hands of a Shipbroker to effect the necessary report &c. Can we claim as a right the reporting fee from the ship?-Yours, &c., J. S. July 5, 1876.

[If the ship and the cargo are addressed to the Charterers' Agents, free of Commission, the Agents in question would have no authority to charge any Commission, and the Master would, in our opinion, be at liberty to employ whom he pleased to report the ship.]

SIR,-1 chartered a vessel here to load for a Merchant in Rochester (as per enclosed copy for your inspection), to whom the Captain or Owners of the vessel named had not had any previous introduction, and I re-chartered this vessel three consecutive voyages for the same party. But on the arrival of the vessel in the North, on the fourth voyage, the Captain chartered for the same Merchant through another Broker, and on the fifth voyage he chartered direct with the Merchant at Rochester (saving Commission). Am I entitled to the Commission on freight for the last two voyages?

CARGOES.

COAL-WHIPPING.

SIR,-I chartered my vessel with a cargo of coals from Granton to Queenborough, to discharge at the Railway Wharf. On arrival, I found they had three men and a boy on board the jetty to raise the cargo from the ship's deck into the railway truck, a height of 25 feet. The Charter says "cargo to be put on board and taken from alongside at Merchant's risk and expense." Am I or the Merchant bound to pay the second hoist?

W. HODGE, Master of Hero, Plymouth. Queenborough, March 29, 1876.

[The Shipowner was bound to give delivery of the coal alongside, and, therefore, he would have to pay for the Whippers.]

COAL DISCHARGE.

SIR,-Our four vessels have arrived here, and the cargoes of coal on board go into the interior by rail, but the railway company don't keep us supplied with trucks. The conse quence is that, allowing a keel per day for discharging, we will be some five to eight days on Demurrage. There were no Charter-parties and no clause in Bills of Lading referring to Lay-days or Demurrage. What is the legal discharge per day, and what Demurrage can we charge after the time expires; also, who is responsible to us-the Shipper, Consignees, or railway company?—Yours, &c.,

Aug. 21, 1876.

FOUR SHIPMASTERS.

[There is no such phrase as legal quantity in discharge known. The output must be governed by the custom of the Port in the absence of Charter-party conditions and stipulations in Bills of Lading. On the Thames it has been held that not less than two keels per day should be discharged. Less than that would be contrary to custom in London and some other places, and this rate ought to hold good at the Port in question. The Charterer would be liable for all detention, but he might have his remedy over against the railway company.]

COAL WEIGHING BY DERRICK.

SIR, I chartered a vessel hence to London, and according to the colliery weight the vessel had 367 tons of coals on board. I had at the rate of 49 tons per day to discharge my vessel in, and the Merchants kept the ship within 24 hours of her time, and then ordered her to the derrick, and she was discharged in 12 hours, and then it was said that the ship had delivered 25 tons short weight. Is it possible for them to weigh such a cargo out correctly in so small a time, to do justice to the ship?-Yours, &c., A SHIPOWNER.

West Hartlepool, March 1, 1877.

[The coal was weighed at the rate of rather more than 30 tons per hour, or about 1 minute 58 seconds per ton. To enable the Meters to ascertain the quantities with accuracy, the machinery should be perfect. It may be possible to weigh coal with this rapidity, but when the time for shovelling into the boxes and hoisting by the hydraulic machine is deducted, we are of opinion that sufficient time would not be left to weigh with justice to all parties.]

HOURS OF LOADING AND STIFFENING COAL. SIR,-A steamer is chartered to take a cargo of coal to a foreign Port. She is to be loaded in the customary manner, and in a given number of hours from the time she is ready, but Demurrage is not to accrue during the time the loading may be prevented by riot or commotion of pitmen, or any hands striking or stopping work, frosts, floods, or other occurrence beyond the control of the Freighter. By the Customs Act an entry outwards must be delivered to the principal Officer of Customs before any goods can be put on board a vessel bound to a foreign Port, except under a stiffening order previously obtained. The vessel comes into dock, ready to take her cargo on board, at ten o'clock at night, when all ordinary work is suspended, all hands having stopped work,

CARGOES.

and, of course, finds nobody to attend to her. Favour me with your opinion, as the case is a common and important one, on these two points, viz.:-1. As the dock machinery by which the coal is shipped is idle when she enters the dock, and she cannot, therefore, be laden in the customary manner until ordinary work time the next morning, would her loading hours begin to count before then? A special arrangement might, in some cases, be made for commencing the shipment of the cargo as soon as she entered the dock if it were known to a certainty when she would arrive, but the Owner will not guarantee that she will be in dock at any particular time, as the failure of the guarantee would involve loss resulting from men and machinery being uselessly kept waiting, and the Charterer is equally unwilling to make preparation for the contingency. 2. If the vessel has no stiffening order provided, and her arrival in Port cannot be reported till Custom-house hours the morning following her arrival, is the Charterer at liberty to put coal on board before the required entry outward at the Custom-house is made, and can the vessel be ready for her outward cargo, and would her loading hours run, till such order is obtained, or the vessel is entered outwards in the Custom-house in the ordinary manner?INQUIRER. Yours, &c.,

Newport (Mon.), Jan. 15, 1877.

[1. Under the agreement quoted it would be the duty of the Consignee to have the vessel telegraphed at the first signal station, or reported immediately on arrival within the Port; and as a stiffening order is obtainable, and there not having been any riot or stoppage of work from strikes or any similar cause, the delay attending on not commencing work would not absolve the Charterer from paying Demurrage on the running hours, commencing from the time the ship was declared ready and in berth. A stiffening order may be obtained without the formal entry outwards. 2. If the Charterer is to provide the stiffening order, and has not done so, the lay hours would run on; but if the fault rests with the Shipowner, the time would not commence to count till the Custom-house was open.]

METERAGE OF COAL.

SIR,-The Merchant wants to discharge my cargo of coals into lighters without weighing them. I will not allow him to do so without he agrees to pay me freight on about the quantity I think I have on board. He declares also that if I insist upon weighing the cargo I must find Meters. As I pay so much per ton for the delivery of my cargo, including City Dues, half weighing, and all other customary charges by screw steamer, I say that the Merchant ought to find Meters, and I have a right to have my cargo weighed out. Am I justified in taking the course I have?-Yours, &c.,

JOHN CHASE, Master of the Kingmoor (s). Rochester, Feb. 7, 1877.

[The Charter-party states:-"The Owners paying lights, Pilotage, trimming, and the sum of 1s. 2d. and of a penny in full of delivery, City Dues, and half weighing." It is not expressly stipulated that the cargo shall be weighed, but the reference to Meterage would imply such a condition. We are of opinion that the Meterage would have to be paid at the joint expense of the ship and the Merchant; and if there is no sworn Corporation Meter, the parties should agree as to the engagement of Meters. The Master can insist upon having the cargo weighed.]

SALE OF COALS C. F. I.

SIR-A firm made a sale of coals on the following terms: "We beg to confirm having sold you 2,000 tons coal at 188., cost, freight, and insurance, Halifax (N.S.). Terms of payment net cash against Bill of Lading, Halifax." A question has arisen whether the firm has by this agreement the right to demand payment for the coals before they arrive and are prepared to deliver at Halifax. The firm drew through their bankers, on shipment of the coals, for the amount, at 18s. per ton, less freight, on demand, with the Bills of Lading

DRYING GRAIN CARGOES.

SIR,-A vessel having met with an accident, was towed into Port and beached. Part of the cargo (grain), which was considerably damaged, was transhipped into another vessel and sent to the Port of destination, arriving eight days afterwards. The grain was then totally destroyed; whereas, had it been dried at the Port into which the vessel was towed, it might have been worth considerably more. Are the Owners of the vessel liable for having taken on themselves to act in this way without consulting the Shippers or Consignees? SUBSCRIBERS.

March 7, 1876.

[It is the duty of the Master of a ship to take care of cargo entrusted to him for delivery, and cases of neglect have involved Shipowners in liabilities. In the case represented by "Subscribers" there may have been a constructive total loss of the grain. What constitutes a constructive total loss of wheat at an intermediate Port, in the event of the vessel being incapacitated by perils of the sea from proceeding on the voyage, would depend upon the propriety of carrying forward the cargo in its damaged condition. If the cost of drying, warehousing, and transhipping the grain, the Salvage upon it, and the extra freight of sending it forward to its destination, exceed the value of the grain on arrival, there is a constructive total loss.-(The Hebe, "Rosetto v. Gurney," Common Pleas, May 30, 1851; "Navone v. Haddon," Common Pleas, January 25, 1850.) Underwriters would be liable where sea-damaged corn is sold at an intermediate Port, although it could be dried and reshipped and taken forward as a merchantable article to its destination. -("Reiner v. Ringrose," Court of Exchequer on appeal, February 26, 1851.) With respect to a cargo of coal which was wetted, and the ship having to put back after sailing, it was held to be the duty of a Shipowner to have the cargo dried, reshipped, and carried to its destination. A dispute arose as to whether the Charterer or the Shipowner should pay the costs, and it was held that the Owner of the vessel was liable. (See "Gibbs, Bright, & Co., v. Wood," Liverpool Assizes, before Baron Pollock, Aug. 22, 1874.) We might cite other cases to show that the duty of drying damaged cargo is cast upon the Master of a ship, subject, of course, to the conditions as to charges and the value of the goods when dried. A Shipowner may elect, on due notice, to send forward the cargo after drying in order to earn the freight, and, in that case, if the Bill of Lading holder takes to the goods short of their destination, the whole freight would be due. As a rule, the Master of a ship is bound to communicate with the Owners of the cargo, and if he does

CARGOES.

CARGOES.

not do so, and forwards the grain in a wet condition, the Shipowner would be liable for the accruing damage.—(See pages 36, 37, 109, and 143, Maritime Notes and Queries, Vol. II.)]

GRAIN CARGOES AND ELEVATORS. SIR,-Grain cargoes are loaded at Montreal by floating grain elevators, and most of them are owned by a combination. There is a very unjust rule in force at the Port of Montreal, by which a ship is not permitted to employ the elevator which will load her at the lowest rate. The question depends on the votes of the Owner of the grain and the Owner of the interior vessel, or the votes of their Agents. These parties, being mostly shareholders in the combination, of course vote to employ the combination elevator, and thus force the Shipowner to pay them double the price he need otherwise pay for loading the cargo. The rule is bad enough, but even when a vessel has the votes in her favour it does not follow that the Owner escapes the grasp of this combination, which, apparently, is allowed to carry matters with a pretty high hand. Regarding my experience, a vessel of which I am Manager loaded a cargo of grain at Montreal last autumn. In this instance the elevator combination had the votes, and the highest rates had to be paid for loading the grain; but another vessel of which I am also Manager, a few weeks later, on arrival at Montreal-both having been chartered on this side in October last-was brought alongside the ship, and the Master arranged with the Owner or Agent of the interior vessel to vote in favour of taking an elevator at half the combination rate. Having the majority of votes, they engaged one accordingly, but the owner of the grain, with perfect impunity and without any remonstrance by the Harbour Authorities, set the harbour rule aside by preventing the delivery of the grain being made; and, further, because the Master had presumed to assert his right to load cargo at the least cost and in accordance with the harbour rule, he detained the ship some three weeks (nearly all her Lay-days), and that at a very critical season and well into November, thus inflicting on me serious loss, for which I have no redress; and, further, he compelled the Master to employ the combination elevator, and worse still, to pay double the rate for it. The owner of the grain was the same person in both the above instances. As to towage.-Arriving from sea, on no account employ a tow further than to Quebec. When once there, a Master can easily get suited, and at much less than "the rates"; and even at Quebec, he should only engage to go up to Montreal, as when he wishes to come down he will find that he can do so much cheaper than if he had engaged at Quebec to do so. If he follows the above he will come out with a Towage bill at least 20 per cent. less than if he had done otherwise. Can I compel the Charterer on this side to refund me the difference paid for loading at Montreal?-Yours, &c., A SHIPOWNER.

Kilmarnock, April 2, 1877.

GRAIN BY WEIGHT AND MEASUREMENT. SIR-We had a vessel at a Scotch Port lately with a cargo of grain in bulk from France. The Bills of Lading, signed without reserve, bore a certain number of hectolitres (measure), weighing a certain number of kilogrammes, and the freight was payable per ton of 15 hectolitres delivered. On discharging it was found that there were several tons measure in excess of the Bill of Lading quantity-quite a usual occurrence-but that there was at the same time a deficit of about per cent. in weight. The Master, who alleges that excess in measure is calculated upon in chartering at a rate per measured ton delivered, rendered his freight account for the quantity of hectolitres delivered. The Receivers not only refused to pay the freight on the surplus, but insisted on deducting the value of the grain short delivered. The questions at issue then are:-1st. Is the Master not entitled to freight on quantity (measure) delivered, in terms of contract? 2nd. Is he responsible for deficit in weight, seeing that he has noted a protest and made a declaration to the effect that all the grain received on board was delivered? March 8, 1876.

SHIPBROKERS.

[The freight was to be paid on the ton of 15 hectolitres delivered, but the Bill of Lading states that the vessel took on board a certain number of hectolitres, weighing a given number of kilogrammes. Freight would be due on the quantity delivered, but it appears that the weight has not been delivered. We would advise the re-weighing of the cargo, for, if the grain was swollen, it would increase in bulk and not diminish in weight.-(See page 104, Maritime Notes and Queries, Vol. II.) Freight is not payable on extra quantity by the heating and swelling of the grain.-(See "Grain by Weight and Measure," page 31, and "Shrinkage of Wheat," page 162, Maritime Notes and Queries, Vol. I.) An action against the Bill of Lading holder for freight on quantity delivered, and for value of grain short delivered, would settle the question.]

VALONEA AND BARLEY.

SIR,-I solicit the favour of your opinion on the enclosed copy of my Charter. I cannot find any parallel case in Maritime Notes and Queries, Vol. III. I am informed by my Agents here that, according to the late Levant Company's rates, my freight will only come to 27s. 6d., which 1 consider a very unfavourable proportion by the time we deduct 2s. 3d. per ton I paid for stowing and rolling the valonea. By Mr. Reed's " Shipmaster's Hand Book," I should think 4s. per 400 lbs. to the quarter would be equi valent to 32s. 6d. per ton with valonea. I may also state that my vessel has been chartered for 37s. 6d. by our Charterers. Yours, &c., HENRY HUGHES,

Master of Atlanta, of Caernarvon. Teignmouth, March 1, 1877.

[By the Charter-party the vessel was to be laden with " full and complete cargo of barley or other lawful merchandise," and the freight was to be paid in cash at the rate of 4s. per 400 lbs. delivered of barley. No mention was made of imperial quarter or the Levant rates, but as the ship loaded at Smyrna the custom might govern the contract. By the Levant Company's rates, when barley pays 12s. per qr., valonea in bags pays 57. per ton, and in bulk 47. per ton.

CARGOES.

By this proportionate scale, and calculating by thirds, valonea in bags would pay 33s. 4d. per ton, and in bulk 26s. 8d. According, however, to the Mediterranean and Black Sea Committee's estimate, the imperial quarter of barley should be taken at 360 lbs.-(See "Valonea and Currants," page 30, Maritime Notes and Queries, Vol. I.)]

WHEAT AND RYE CHARTER.

SIR,-We enclose for your inspection a copy of a Charter upon the terms of which one of our boats was chartered from Cronstadt. She discharged at Amsterdam a cargo of rye, the freight stipulated being 28. 9d. per 496 lbs. wheat, other grain, &c., in proportion, as per the London and Baltic printed rates, and for rye per 480 lbs. At what rate are we entitled to be paid according to the Charter? The Receivers will only settle at 2s. 6d. per 480 lbs., and say the custom at Amsterdam is to settle at 7 per cent. off 480 lbs. The 7 per cent. would be fair enough if freight was payable per imperial quarter, but we do not think it is so when taken by weight. Do you consider that we could claim on the Charterers (in England) for the difference?

London, Sept. 18, 1878.

SUBSCRIBERS.

[The ship was chartered to load a cargo of wheat or other grain, or seed, at 2s. 6d. for London or East Coast, 28. 9d. Amsterdam, Rotterdam, or Dunkirk, and 3s. the rest of the Continent, at per 496 lbs. for wheat (other grain or seeds in proportion, according to the London Baltic printed rates), at 320 lbs. for oats, 400 lbs. for barley, 424 lbs. for linseed, and 480 lbs. for rye. The ship having been ordered to Amsterdam, the freight on rye would not be governed by the Baltic scale, as there is a specific contract to pay 2s. 9d. on every 480 lbs. of rye. The meaning of "other grain or seeds according to the Baltic rates" would refer to grain or seeds not distinctly enumerated. The custom of Amsterdam could not be successfully pleaded to set aside the written terms of a contract. If the Bills of Lading are at variance with the Charter-party, or the 3d. on every 480 lbs. is withheld, the Charterer would be liable for the difference.]

BARLEY BY WEIGHT OR MEASURE. SIR,-In the fifth edition of "Stevens on Stowage," at page 207, I read a vessel loaded 667 kilos. of Ibrail (barley), and for settlement of freight as per Bill of Lading, this quantity was made to be equal to 1,397 imperial quarters. Do you think this correct? Ibrail kilos. are 232=100 according to all extant scale.-Yours, &c., Captain ESSEY WINT. Newport, Feb. 14, 1877.

[The Mediterranean and Bck Sea Committee's scale makes the following estimate:- wheat (the standard), 100 qrs. average per imperial qr. 480 lbs., equal to 100 units; barley, 114.12 qrs. average per imperial quarter 360 lbs., equal to 85-59. From the Parliamentary papers on tariffs, we find that 100 kilos. are equal to 220-4 lbs. avoirdupois, which makes one kilogramme equal to 2.204 lbs. The weights of all kinds of grain differ according as they are

OILCAKES.-CUSTOMARY DESPATCH.

SIR, I arrived here with a cargo of linseed oilcakes in bags, with the following clause in the Charter-party:-" Customary despatch for discharging at Port of discharge." 1st. The cargo is about 310 tons. How long a time have the Consignees the right to keep the ship in discharging this? 2nd. Can I keep the cargo in the ship for Demurrage when there is stated in the Charter-party, "Captain having a lien on the cargo for freight, dead freight, and Demurrage "; and, besides, when it is stated in the Bill of Lading-"all other conditions as per Charter-party"?-Yours, &c.,

Bristol, July 22, 1876. A FOREIGN SHIPMASTER. [1st. Not less than 60 tons per clear working day should be discharged. 2nd. The ship must not be made a warehouse of for retaining the lien on cargo. The oilcakes should be landed and warehoused.

OILCAKE.-DISCHARGING DAYS.

SIR,-My vessel, under the Norwegian flag, and with a full Crew on board, arrived at the Port of Bristol from New Orleans with a cargo of oilcake, " to be discharged according to the custom of the Port" (see Charter-party enclosed). The Merchants admit that 40 tons per day is a reasonable quantity for the discharge, which will give my vessel 15 days for the entire cargo. For the first 8 or 10 days scarcely any cargo was taken out, and on calling the attention of the Merchants to the slow delivery, they stated that they were prepared to take the cargo faster provided I could work two batches. My crew were working the cargo, and could easily have discharged from 50 to 60 tons each day. I wish to know whether I am compelled to take extra help under such circumstances. I may add that the weather being very wet, the Merchants do not consider that they are bound to discharge on wet days. Am I obliged to wait until the fine weather returns ?-Yours, &c.,

Bristol, Jan. 11, 1877. A NORWEGIAN SHIPMASTER. [If the Crew could have given delivery at the rate of 60 tons per day at one hatch, or have placed for the reception of the Merchant the conceded reasonable quantity of 40 tons per diem, any increased expenses incurred to make up for the delays on the part of the Consignee should fall on him. Weather days count in the Lay-days when not specially excluded by agreement. (See pp. 82 and 90, Maritime Notes and Queries, Vol. II.)]

SIR,-I chartered my vessel to load 100 tons of old rails in turn. How many days must I lay, after the vessel is on turn, before I can claim Demurrage? The rails are put on board by a steam crane, and the ship could take in 70 tons per day if the rails were ready.-Yours, &c.,

HORROCKS, Master of the Amelia, of Goole.

Highbridge, March 29, 1877.

[The loading of the vessel would very much depend upon the custom of the Port. The cargo ought to be ready when the vessel is ready and berthed. If 70 tons can be loaded per working day, that should govern the despatch.]

IRON CARGO.

SIR,-I loaded a cargo of pig iron at a Yorkshire Port, but did not see it weighed. I loaded my vessel, and left about two tons of iron in a truck on the wharf. I had to sign Bills of Lading for 140 tons, the Merchant at the Port at the time giving me a note signed by him to the effect that if there should be any claim for short weight he would allow for the iron left in the truck. He now denies having the truck, but I have witnesses to prove that the truck laden with the iron was on the wharf when the vessel left. Short weight is claimed for. What is the best course for me to adopt? March 2, 1876. SHIPMASTER.

[If the ship took on board 138 tons of iron, and the Master signed for 140, the Bill of Lading holder would be wronged, if the latter purchased 140 tons. If all the iron put on board was delivered, the Master would have a claim on the Shipper for the deficiency; but he would be accountable to the Bill of Lading holder for the weight expressed in that instrument. -(See Letter "Pig Iron, Sand, and Rust," page 5, and "Short Delivery," page 59, Maritime Notes and Queries, Vol. I.)]

NITRATE OF SODA.

SIR,-How many tons per day is considered the custom of the Port of Gloucester for discharging phosphate? We think it is 50 tons per day.-Yours, &c., ONE INTERESTED. Swansea, Feb. 23, 1877.

[There is no established custom at the Port of Gloucester relating to phosphate cargoes, and not less than 60 tons should be discharged daily.]

NITRATE CARGOES.

SIR,-We have two vessels which have been several days on Demurrage by counting 60 tons per working day as the proper quantity, if the case of the Helen Burns is to rule as to that daily delivery. Is there any rule why a ship should not be discharged at even 80 to 100 tons per day, or as fast as she can put it out, there being no custom of the Port against it in the Tyne? The Customs authorities some days ago gave the Captains notice that the 14 days, exclusive of Sundays and holidays, allowed by them for the discharge of the ships have expired, and that they, the Captains, will be held liable for all expenses afterwards incurred by keeping the Officers on board, &c. Does not this prove the "custom of the Port"?—Yours, &c.,

Newcastle, Dec. 18. "CONSTANT SUBSCRIBERS.

[The quantity to be delivered per diem depends-1st, upon the terms of the agreement; 2nd, in the absence of any

stipulation as to output, upon the indisputable custom of the Port; and 3rd, where no usage exists, upon reasonable despatch. At a Port like that of Newcastle, where facilities exist for the discharge of cargo, less than 60 tons per day would be unreasonable, and there is no rule to restrict the delivery to any number of tons. The Custom-house allows 14 days for the discharge of a cargo, after which the Owner must pay for the detention of the Officers.]

PHOSPHATE CARGO.

SIR,-Referring to "Shipowner's" inquiry, in your issue of the 10th inst, respecting the custom of the Port of London for the discharge of phosphate cargoes, I do not understand from your answer if 35 tons per day is the customary rate of discharge at this Port on such cargo. Phosphate has not been brought here many years, and the usual discharge is 50 tons per day, or, in other words, that is the quantity_one gang of men can discharge on an average per diem. Does not the custom of this Port on all cargoes compel the Consignee to supply a vessel with lighters or other means to keep one gang of Stevedores at work at one hatch discharging the whole working day, irrespective of the number of tons put out?-Yours, &c., INQUIRER.

London, Oct. 12, 1876.

[We referred to a former letter, in which it was stated, in reply to a question on the same subject, that there was no established usage in London with respect to the daily discharge of phosphate cargoes; but as 35 tons had been stipulated for in Charters, not less than that weight should be delivered per diem. It is possible to discharge an entire cargo in one day, and it was stated in one case that 60 tons could be discharged. We are of opinion that as much as can be taken by one hatch should be delivered within the working day, and lightered or carted.]

RAILWAY BARS.

SIR,-What does ordinary railway iron consist of, say for a steamer chartered to load ordinary rails hence to Genoa? Where the word "ordinary" is specially expressed in the Charter, what maximum length is implied?—Yours, &c., Antwerp, March 22, 1877. JOHN P. BEST & CO.

[The ordinary length is 15 feet.]

PETROLEUM CARGOES.-HOURS FOR

DISCHARGING.

SIR,-How many hours per day (after deducting meal hours) are allowed at the Port of London during the winter months for the discharge of petroleum residuum imported by sailing ships from the United States of America, and the average number of barrels discharged per day in such cases where the Charter-party stipulates "customary despatch for discharging cargo at port of discharge"? Please state also the practice relative thereto in existence at the other leading Ports in the United Kingdom where such goods are imported. STEVENSON, RESSICH & CO.

Leith, Dec. 29, 1875.

[Petroleum is in the class of "Free Goods," and the regular Custom-house hours for discharging such goods at all places in the United Kingdom are from 8 A.M. to 4 P.M. in the winter months, and from 6 A.M. to 6 P.M. in the summer. About 280 barrels are discharged in London daily from ships having cargoes of petroleum. The practices relative to dis charge as to places and conditions have to be regulated by the Explosive Act, 1875, and all "Regulations" issued at the different Ports must be advertised in the Shipping and Mercantile Gazette.]