The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. MONDAY, AUGUST 23, 1909. A STATE SCANDAL.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2587, 23 August 1909, Page 4

The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. MONDAY, AUGUST 23, 1909. A STATE SCANDAL.

Our attention has been drawn to an abuse of Parliamentary privileges which certainly demands a most searching enquiry. It is in connection with the State coal department, which has depots for retailing coal in the chief centres of the Dominion. Tho competition of the State department is felt very severely -by private companies and by retailers who handle their coal, but so long as the State runs its business on fair lines, those who have been injured by its competition have not been disposed to complain. When, however, we find the State utilising its exceptional position to evade the laws of the land which bind its trade rivals, then wo must concede that its competition is distinctly unfair. There is' in existence a law on the Statute Book known as the Crown Suits Act whereby it is enacted that, except in specific cases, no action for damages can be'taken against the Government except by the consent of the Crown. Now, although a State trading department was never dreamt of at the time this Act was passed, the Government has used its provisions to cover the operations of the State Coal Department. In Wellington an existing coal yard and business was purchased (not from a political' opponent) and the business started. Whilst a private individual conducted the business no damage was done to adjoining premises, for the proprietor knew fulk'Xvell that if Ire created any nuisance ho was liable at law. Not so the State! In the midst of a populous neighborhood it established an extensive coal business, and the consequent screening caused the dust to fly everywhere. Anyone going into the premises adjoining can see the result, it is both visible and material, even to the prejudiced eye. When redress was demanded, the official in charge, backed up by a high-banded Department refused to recognise any claim, well knowing that no damage could lie against tho State. A petition was presented to Parliament, and a committee, consisting largely of Government supporters, reported that they had no recommendation to make. There remained but one course, namely to demand from the Crown the right to take the case to Court. This was at first refused, but the Government ultimately agreed to waive the protection of the Act. Even this was partially withdrawn and the “concession” was not allowed to cover an injunction. The case was tried in court, and lasted three days; damages amounting to £205 being given in favor of the Company. Notwithstanding the damage being proved, the nuisance did not cease, and the Farmers’ Distributing Company in consequence have not been able to let the premises, although scores of likely tenants have inspected them and been quite satisfied with the position, near the wharf, close to the tram-line, within a stone’s throw of the Town Hall, and in the heart of the business centre of the city. The company again complained, again were flouted, and this time were absolutely refused the right of appealing to the Court for damages, and consequently are still suffering grievous injury without the opportunity of legal redress. Their loss, it is alleged, will not be less—during the term of their lease —than £ISOO. The facts here narrated are taken from the “Farmers’ Union Advocate,” and they certainly disclose a very unsatisfactory state of affaire. Another instance of the peculiar manner in which this State department is allowed to conduct its operations is provided by the case of a tramway motorman, Barton, who was injured by the steam coal waggon belonging to the Department. He has not been able to work for over a year, and will in the future be fit only for vefy light work. The Crown refuses to give Barton the right to sue for damages and .so he has no redress. If these cases can. he taken as a criterion of the manner in which the State is conducting its trading operations then it is quite time a Parliamentary inquiry was held into the whole system. It is iniquitous that whilst private business firms have to stand the racket of Trade' Union de-

xaands, Arbitration Awards, iCompensgtiori Acts .and so forth, the State should • ;b©-' able: to..entirely; escape liability, merely by pointing to an Act that was certainly never intended to defeat the ends of justice in such a barefaced manner.