Final answer:
The statement is False. Unseaworthiness and unfitness exclusions apply to shippers who fail to ensure their vessels are fit for the voyage, which includes proper maintenance, equipment, and crew, as well as the absence of contraband or improper cargo. Most responsible shippers would not operate under the assumption that this exclusion applies to them.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement '"Unseaworthiness and unfitness" exclusion would not apply to most shippers' is False. The term 'unseaworthiness' refers to the condition of a ship when it is not reasonably fit for the intended voyage or service due to flaws in construction, maintenance, or equipment. 'Unfitness' could also relate to the inadequacy of the crew or the carrying of improper cargo like contraband. Shipping laws and maritime insurance often have clauses that relieve carriers from responsibility when loss or damage occurs due to the ship being unseaworthy or unfit.
In the context provided by Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan's metaphor, a ship carrying contraband and relying on passengers for protection is akin to compromising the intended safety mechanisms of the voyage—such a ship might be considered 'unfit' for its purpose. Similarly, as indicated in the quote regarding a life-boat not searching for survivors, if a ship was lost due to unseaworthiness, rescue efforts may be hampered due to the lack of notification of the wreck.
Hence, if carriers knowingly operate an unseaworthy or unfit vessel, especially in cases involving illegal or improper cargo, they cannot typically expect the exclusion to protect them. Therefore, most responsible shippers who ensure their vessels are seaworthy and fit for the journey should not operate under the assumption of this exclusion as their standard.