213' FEDERAL REPORTER. �arrivai. It is to be observed, however, thai the charter-party speaks of an excess of freight "as per bill of lading and this' charter." The bill of lading states the freight to be les. 3d. per ton on weight delivered, so that -whether or nofc there -was an excess of freight, "as per bill of lading and this charter, " could not be ascertained until the cargo was delivered. This being the contract for freight expressed by the bill of lading, — a contract made by the libellants themselves with the freight- ers, — and it being almost an absolute certainty that there would be, on a cargo of purple ore, some loss of weight, it is Bcarcely supposable that the owners intended that they were to pay to the charterers a fictitious excess of freight whieh they could have no expectation of collecting. The more obvions and reasonable meaning of the clause, "charterers not to be held liable for any loss of freight arising from breakage, leakage, drainage, or any other cause beyond their control," in the connection in which it is found in this char- ter, is, it seems to me, that if there was once put on board cargo sufficient, at the rate fixed by the bills of lading, to satisfy the lump sum, then the charterers were not after- wards td be held liable to the owners for any deficiency which migbt arise from any cause beyond their conttol. This interpretation, I think, fuUy satisfles the language of the stipulation, and is reasonable and eensible, while that con- tended for by the libellants seems to me strained and un- reàiSonable. Whatever causes there were which united to produce the loss of weight in the cargo, it is clear they were not causes attributable to any fault of the ship or owners ; and as the excess of freight intended by the charter must, in my judgment, be held to be an actual excess, which the ship's consignee was entitled.to colleot from the consignee of the cargo, it follows that there is nothing due to the libellants. The claimants bave urged the court not to exercise jurîsdic- tion in this case for the reason that the libellants and claim- ants are ail British subjects, the ship British, and the con- tract one made in Liverpool. If there were any allegations that the language of the charter is to be explained by any ����
