THE CROWN SUITS ACT.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2669, 26 November 1909, Page 4

THE CROWN SUITS ACT.

One of the worst features that have come to light in connection with the advent of the State into the realms of ordinary trade, was emphasised in a discussion which took place in the House of Representatives the other day. In the first place it should be mentioned that a law known as the Crown Suits Act makes it impossible for the Government to be sued for damages unless its consent to the suit going on has first been obtained. For reasons which it is not necessary to go into just now this provision is held to be necessary in order to protect the Government from being constantly in the law courts as the. defendant of the numberless charges' which persons with an alleged grievance would bring against it. So soon, however, as the Government entered into ordinary trade it should certainly have submitted itself to the same regulations which govern the conduct of its private competitors. However, this is not Sir Joseph Ward’s idea of the principles which should govern State-enter-, prises and the'fact'is instanced by the experience of those brought into contact with the State coal-mine’s Wellington depot. This establishment is in close proximity to the Now’ Zealand* Farmers’ Co-operative Distributing Company’s premises, and the business of the latter wafei'said to have been seriously interfered 'with by the nuisance created by the (Screening operations of the State coal yard. The Co-operative Company sought for legal redress, but the Government ‘Department interposed with the provisions of the Crown Suits Act. just before last election, when the Government was more amenable than usual to all sorts of influence, it decided to waive the protection of the‘‘Act and the case went to Court. The Company won, being awarded 'damages,-;.and naturally, one' would have expected that the State Department would have immediately taken steps to abate the nuisance. On the contrary .the cause of the complaint still exists, and the-application .of the Company for an. injunction to prevent the nuisance from being continued cannot be taken to Court because the Department has again sheltered itself behind the convenient Crown Suits Act. In other words, the State is permitted to continue to inflict damage upon a private firm and' the latter has no redress at law. Surely it would be hard to imagine a worse instance of the 'tyranny that .canr‘be > in the' • name .of State socialjisfp’ I bThere' is no justice in trading of,' this*kind, and. if the Government is enabled to get the better of private traders fin this fashion then the- sooner we make the straight-out plunge'.'into extreme socialism with abolition of private dealing the more satisfactory from some points of view it will be. Another case in point is that of a tramway motorman named Barton, who sustained lifelong injuries through, a collision with the State coal -waggon. He considers that he has a claim for damages against the Government, hut he is not allow'ed to press it, for the Crown Suits Act* blocks , the way-; The Department could, if it chose, waive the protection of the Act ‘in this or any other spe- ; cial ca'sej sbutdnstead it .prefers to play the foie of coward and to shirk its moral responsibility by the use of legal technicalities. These facts were brought out in the debate in Parliament and a number of Government supporters joined with the • Opposition in declaim- - ing the stand taken by the Cabinet. However, when the division-bell rang the Government whip was able to' musup sufficient of the 1 servile, dumb-' dog type to save a party defeat, and although, a Parliamentary • Committee had recommended that the case of the Distributing Company, should be sub-., mitted to Arbitration, the proposal was thrown out by : 29 votes to 25. The Premier’s defence of the Governmental attitude reads very ’weak : Sir Joseph said that tlvero was ft theory that it was easy to get heavy,

damages' against the Government, and an idea that the sympathies, of a jury usually went in favor of the individual, as against the Government. Once the doors were opened in the way that was suggested there was not to be one or two cases brought against the Government, but a sheaf of cases, and in nine cases out of ten the Government would have to pay the costs. With regard to the case in which a motorman was injured through a collision of a State coal wagon and a tramcar, the fact was that the petitioner should have brought a claim ag.ainst the municipality. and not against the Government.'

•Mr Massey: But who did the damage? Sir Joseph said that ho was nofc prepared to yield to the request without indicating what it would mean, so that the members could accept their share of the responsibilities in the matter. In view of the fact that the Government had entered into various social undertakings great care should ho taken to &(v> that reasonable protection was afforded the Government against litigation. Anyone must see that this is the flimsiest kind of excuse. As a matter of fact the same feeling which exists to some extent in the community in regard to favoring damages being given against the Government, applies with equal force to companies and all sorts of corporate bodies. It is generally considered by a certain section of the populace to be good business for a private individual to get damages against any big company, but these have to stand the racket. What, for instance, is more popular than a suit against a newspaper? The expensive litigation which journalistic proprietors have to face against “men of straw” whose cases are taken “on spec.” by impecunious lawyers seeking cheap notoriety is a painful fact to newspaper shareholders, but there is no suggestion of alleviating their hardships. Why, it may he asked, should the Westport Coal Company stand on a worse footing in this respect than its State competitor? Is it not enough that the latter should have the financial backing of the' State and be saved from .the inconvenience of having to pay dividends without being freed from all sorts of legal obligations that cost its private competitor a tidy sum every year? Under such circumstances all the Government need do if its Coal Department is languishing, is to put the screw 'on to its trade rivals by means of some specially harrassing legislation, and they will be squeezed out of existence whilst the State business, free from the disastrous consequences of its own laws, gains a flourishing monopoly. During the debate in the House Mr Herd man mentioned that he had a Bill drawn up dealing with this matter, but like his Public .Service Bill it had been studiously kept at the bottom of the Order paper and sedulously blocked by the Government..