lost, and therefore recoverable by the shipowner from the
charterer as damages if a full and complete cargo is not
loaded in accordance with the terms of the charter-party.
The cesser clause has come into common use because very
frequently the charterers are not personally interested in
the cargo shipped. They may be agents merely, or they may
have chartered the vessel as a speculation to make a profit
upon the bill of lading freight. The effect of the clause is
that when the charterers have shipped a full cargo they have
fulfilled all their obligations, the shipowner discharging them
from all further liability and taking instead a lien on the
cargo for payment of all freight, demurrage or dead freight
that may be payable to him. It has become an established
rule for the construction of the cesser clause that, if
the language used will permit it, the cesser of liability is
assumed to be co-extensive only with the lien given to the
shipowner; or, in other words, the charterers are released
from those liabilities only for which a lien is given to the
shipowner. The shipowner is further secured by the stipulation
already referred to, that if the total freight payable under
the bills of lading is less than the full chartered freight
the difference shall be paid to the shipowner before the vessel
sails. A difficulty which sometimes arises, notwithstanding
these precautions, is that although an ample lien is given
by the charter-party, the terms of the bills of lading may be
insufficient to preserve the same extensive lien as against
the holder of the bills of lading. The shippers under the
bills of lading, if they are not the charterers, are not
liable for the chartered freight, but only for the bill
of lading freight; and unless the bill of lading expressly
reserves it, they are not subject to a lien for the chartered
freight. The master may guard against this difficulty by
refusing to sign bills of lading which do not preserve the
shipowner's lien for his full chartered freight. But he is
often put into a difficulty by a somewhat improvident clause
in the charter-party requiring him to sign bills of lading
as presented. See Kruger v. Moel Tryvan, 1907 A. C. 272.
(2) A time charter-party is a contract between the shipowner
and charterers, by which the shipowner agrees to let and
the charterers to hire the vessel for a specified term for
employment, either generally in any lawful trade or upon
voyages within certain limits. A place is usually named
at which the vessel is to be re-delivered to the owners at
the end of the term, and the freight is payable until such
re-delivery; the owner almost always pays the wages of the
master and crew, and the charterers provide coals and pay
port charges; the freight is usually fixed at a certain rate
per gross register ton per month, and made payable monthly
in advance, and provision is made for suspension of hire in
certain cases if the vessel is disabled; the master, though he
usually is and remains the servant of the owner, is required
to obey the orders of the charterers as regards the employment
of the vessel, they agreeing to indemnify the owners from all
liability to which they may be exposed by the master signing
bills of lading or otherwise complying with the orders of the
charterers; and the contract is made subject to exceptions
similar to those in bills of lading and voyage charter-parties.
This is the general outline of the ordinary form of a time
charter-party, but the forms and their clauses vary, of
course, very much, according to the circumstances of each case.
It is apparent that under a time charter-party the shipowner
to a large extent parts with the control of his ship, which
is employed within certain limits according to the wish and
directions, and for the purposes and profit of, the charterers.
But, as we have already explained at the beginning of this
article, the shipowner continues in possession of his vessel
by his servant the master, who remains responsible to his
owner for the safety and proper navigation of the ship. The
result of this, as has been already pointed out, is that the
holder of a bill of lading signed by the master, if he has
taken the bill of lading without knowledge of the terms of
the time charter-party, may hold the owner responsible for
the due performance of the contract signed by the master in
the ordinary course of his duties, and within his ostensible
authority as servant of the shipowner, although in fact in
signing the bill of lading the master was acting as agent
for and at the direction of the time charterer, and not the
shipowner. In the language of the ordinary time charter-party
the ship is let to the charterers; but there is no true
demise, because, as we have pointed out, the vessel remains
in the possession of the shipowner, the charterer enjoying
the advantages and control of its employment. Where the
possession of a ship is given up to a hirer, who appoints
his own master and crew, different considerations apply; but
though the instrument by which the ship is let may be called a
charter-party, it is not truly a contract of affreightment.
Customary rights.
There are certain rights and obligations arising out of the
relationship of shipowner and cargo-owner in circumstances
of extraordinary peril or urgency in the course of a voyage,
which, though not strictly contractual, are well established
by the customs of merchants and recognized by the law. It is
obvious that, when a ship carrying a cargo is in the course
of a voyage, the master to some extent represents the owners
of both ship and cargo. In cases of emergency it may be
necessary that the master should, without waiting for authority
or instructions, incur expense or make sacrifices as agent
not only of his employer, the shipowner, but also of the
cargo-owner. Ship and cargo may be in peril, and it may
be necessary for the safety of both to put into a port of
refuge. There it may be necessary to repair the ship, and to
land and warehouse, and afterwards re-ship the cargo. For these
purposes the master will be obliged to incur expense, of which
some part, such as the cost of repairing the ship, will be for
the benefit of the shipowner; part, such as the warehousing
expenses, will be for the benefit of the cargo-owner; and part,
such as the port charges incurred in order to enter the port
of refuge, are for the common benefit and safety of ship and
cargo. Again, in a storm at sea, it may be necessary for the
safety of ship and cargo to cut away a mast or to jettison,
that is to say, throw overboard part of the cargo. In such
a case the master, acting for the shipowner or cargo-owner,
as the case may be, makes a sacrifice of part of the ship or
part of the cargo, in either case for the purpose of saving
ship and cargo from a danger common to both. Voluntary
sacrifices so made and extraordinary expenses incurred for
the common safety are called general average (see AVERAGE)
sacrifices and expenses, and are made good to the person who
has made the sacrifice or incurred the expense by a general
average contribution, which is recoverable from the owners of
the property saved in proportion to its value, or, in other
words, each contributes rateably according to the benefit
received. The law regulating the rights of the parties with
regard to such contribution is called the law of General
Average. It must, however, be remembered that the owner of the
cargo is entitled under the contract of affreightment to the
ordinary service of the ship and crew for the safe carriage of
the cargo to its destination, and the shipowner is bound to pay
all ordinary expenses incurred for the purpose of the voyage.
He must also bear all losses arising from damage to the ship by
accidents. But when extraordinary expense has been incurred by
the shipowner for the safety of the cargo, he can recover such
expense from the owner of the cargo as a special charge on
cargo; or when an extraordinary expense has been incurred or a
voluntary sacrifice made by the shipowner to save the ship and
cargo from a peril common to both, he may require the owner of
cargo to contribute in general average to make good the loss.
See Carver, Carriage by Sea (London, 1905); Scrutton,
Charter-parties and Bills of Lading (London, 1904). (W.)
AFGHANISTAN, a country of Central Asia. Estimated area
245,000 sq. m. (including Badakshan and Kafiristan). Pop. about
5,000,000. It is bounded on the N. by Russian Turkestan,
on the W. by Persia, and on the E. and S. by Kashmir and the
independent tribes of the North-West Frontier of India and
Baluchistan. The chief importance of Afghanistan in modern
days is due to its position as a ``buffer state'' intervening
between the two great empires of Asiatic Russia and British
India. During the last quarter of the 19th century our
knowledge of the country was greatly increased, and its
boundaries on the N., E. and S. were strictly delimited.
The second Afghan war of 1878-80 afforded an opportunity for
the extension of wide geographical surveys on a scientific
basis. The Russian-Afghan Boundary Commission of 1884-1886
resulted in the delimitation and mapping of the northern
frontier. The Durand agreement of 1893 led to the partition of
the Pathan tribes on the southern and eastern frontiers. The Pamir
Commission of 1895 settled its north-eastern border. Finally the
Perso-Baluch Commission of 1904-1905 defined its western face.
Beginning with the Persian border at Zulfikar on the Hari Rud
river, the boundary between Afghanistan and Russia follows
a line roughly parallel to the course of the Paropamisus,
and about 35 m. to the north of it, till it strikes the
Kushk river in Jamshidi territory at a point which was
once known as Chahil Dukteran, but is now the Russian post
Kushkinski, and the terminus of a branch railway from Merv.
Kushkinski is about 20 m. below the old Jamshidi settlement
of Kushk, which is the capital of Badghis. The settlement
and the post originally called Kushk must not be confused
together. From Kushkinski the boundary runs north-east,
crossing the Murghab river near Maruchak (which is an Afghan
fortress), and thence passes north-east through the hills of
the Chul, and the undulating deserts of the Aleli Turkmans,
to the Oxus, leaving the valleys of Charshamba and of Andkhui
(to which it runs approximately parallel) within Afghan
limits. These valleys denote the limits of cultivation in
this direction. Throughout all this region the boundary is
generally of an artificial character, marked by pillars, but
it is here and there indicated by natural features forming
local lines of water-parting or water-course. The boundary
meets the Oxus at Khamiab at the western extremity of the
cultivated district of Khwaja Salar, and from that point to
the eastern end of Lake Victoria in the Pamirs the main channel
of the Oxus river forms the northern limits of Afghanistan.
(See OXUS.) Eastwards from Lake Victoria the frontier
line was determined by the Pamir Boundary Commission of
1895. A part of the little Pamir is included in Afghan
territory, but the boundary crosses this Pamir before the great
bend northwards of the Aksu takes place, and, passing over a
series of crags and untraversable mountain ridges, is lost on
the Chinese frontier in the snowfields of Sarikol. Bending
back westwards upon itself, the line of Afghan frontier now
follows the water-parting of the Hindu Kush; and as the Hindu
Kush absolutely overhangs the Oxus nearly opposite Ishkashim,
it follows that, at this point, Afghanistan is about 10 m.
