APPEAL PENDING

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 59, Issue 40, 26 November 1938, Page 10

APPEAL PENDING

REFUSAL OF GOODS LICENCE.

SOUTH CANTERBURY SERVICE.

(Special to the “ Guardian.”)

CHRISTCHURCH. This Pay

“Most certainly I am lodging an appeal,” said Mr Charles Humphris, of Humphris Motors when asked in 'an interview yesterday, what action he intended to take in view of the (refusal of the No. 3 Transport Licensing Authority to renew his licence between Christchurch and 'South Canterbury.

“The decision of tine No. 3 Transport Licensing Authority in refusing my application for a. renewal of licence came as a surprise to me, as it did to the people of South Canterbury, who have enjoyed the many advantages of the service I have given them continuously for some years,” Mr Humphris said. “I started -this business long before licensing of road transport operators was ever thought of, and under the recently introduced laws I have faithfully carried out the service in a way that has complied with every requirement of the law. “At the hearing, abundant evidence was given to show that my service was necessary and in the public interest. In fact, the licensing authority admitted to the representatives of the Farmers’ Union, who spoke on behalf of more than 2000 South Canterbury farmers, that a service such as thjp one I was providing, was necessary, and, further, he promised that they , would not have to go without one. “It is quite true that the Railway Department offered to buy me out; but they wanted to take my service over at their o : h in. price; which virtually means the trade-in value of my plant together with my property at a valuation madfc by some Government official. Because I refused to accept the offer I was threatened with a refusal of the renewal of my licence. The position is simply that the Railway Department wants my business and it is not prepared to pay a reasonable price for it. The tribunal sot up by the Government to consider all cases where operators have agreed to sell is so constituted that iiiy its order of reference ft is quite unable to function in the same manner as would lie the ease if leach side appointed independent valuers. - “I can hardly think that the Prime Minister and the Minister for Transport would be parties to my ruination because I have refused what I consider is ah inadequate offer by the Railway Department for my business. Statements made by Mr Savage and Mi; Semple in public, and promises made by them from time to time have indicated that transport operators working under the Licensing Acts, would receive fair treatment. Some time ago the Minister for Transport said: ‘The Hon. the Prime Minister has made a statement which I support, that wlierle private enterprise has built up an economic and properly run service within the law, the Government will not dostrov it.’

“All that I ask is that these promises should be fulfulled. On my side every requirement made by the* Ministers has been faithfully carried out. In addition, I claim, and this is supported by more than 2000 South Canterbury farmers, that my service is superior to that given by the railways. Mine is an on-to-the farm service. “It has been stated that my service enjoys a monopoly,” said Mr Humphris in conclusion. “This is not the case, as besides the railway, there are two other services owned by private enterprise, who accept goods offering in Christchurch for delivery in South Canterbury a/reas to which mv service ruus.”