RURAL DELIVERY LICENSES

Press, Volume LXX, Issue 21354, 22 December 1934, Page 6

RURAL DELIVERY LICENSES

AUTHORITY OVER RULES DEPARTMENT POWERS DEFINED RESERVED JUDGMENT DECIDES LETTING OF CONTRACTS An important principle concerned with the issuing of goods service licenses for country districts as affecting the letting of mail-carrying contracts by the Post and Telegraph Department has been decided by a reserved judgment announced bji the No. 8, Transport Licensing Authority. A long discussion concerning these licenses took place at the sitting of the authority in Christchurch last week, when applications for licenses were being considered in cases where new mail contracts had been let by the department. The licenses were ori-, ginally granted conditional on the holding of the mail contract and counsel for one of the applicants criticised severely the attitude that the licensing authority could over-rule the department by refusing licenses to mail contractors. The general effect of the judgment is that the authority maintains its right so to over-rule and states that the holding of a contract to carry mail can only weigh with the authority in issuing licenses when it is greatly more important than any other part of the carrying business concerned. Mr J. D. Hutchison is chairman of the No. 8 Licensing Authority. The section of the judgment specifically dealing with the principle involved, and not with the specific cases on which judgment was reserved, states:—

"In considering these cases, a principle that we feel should be adopted is that if the mail contract far outweighs any other part of the carrying business then, prima facie, if a new operator is the lower tenderer he should be entitled to the license and the unsuccessful tenderer should give way to him, the rest of the business in that case clearly following the mail contract. If, on the other hand, the mail subsidy is a small thing compared with the rest of the licensee's business then we think it would be wrong and in the face of Section 26 to bring in a new man, but that in such a case if the licensee cannot agree with the Post Office as to the amount of the subsidy to be paid it might be referred to the licensing authority to fix. Consideration would have to be given in this case to the other elements, such as, for example, how much of the outside business is due wholly or in part to the licensee's own exertions and how much necessarily follows his having the Post Office contract. Some consideration must be given also to the length of time the applicant has held the contract as having a bearing on the aspect of the case—the longer he has held it the greater the consideration to which he is entitled. Other considerations apply, too, but in our view these are the basic ones." The judgment added that an effort had been made to apply the principle of that decision to the cases considered. Particular Applications The particular applications being considered were as follows:—Ashbur-ton-Newlands rural delivery: J. W Ramsay, of Ashburton, applied for an amendment to a goods service license enabling him to cSrry mails; C. W. Shearman, of Ashburton, applied for a goods service license for the same route. Ramsay's application has been granted for one vehicle of 10 cwt. to carry mail. Shearman's application was granted except to carry mails. Discussing the applications of Ramsay and Shearman the judgment

states that the authority considered they represented a "border-line" case. If Ramsay wished for more than mails he must secure it by agreement with Shearman. If mails alone were not sufficient for Ramsay no doubt Shearman could take them over by arrangement with the postal authorities. Tender System Unnecessary? r "No doubt the Post Office authorities will give consideration to the question of whether the tender system, which was valuable in the past, is fetny longer necessary with transport now under the system of control," the judgment adds. Ashburton-Hinds-Mayfield rural delivery; A. M. Kingsbeer, of Ashburton, applied for renewal of a license on the route. S. J. Samuels for a license on the same route. Kingsbeer's application had been granted for mails, newspapers, cream, bread, and small parcels. A special condition is that if required by the postal authorities he shall carry rural mail at a price to be agreed on by negotiation. If negotiation fails the authority will settle the arrangement after hearing representations. The application of Samuels, the successful tenderer for the mail contract, was refused.

Referring to the applications of Samuels -and Kingsbeer, the judgment stated that Kingsbeer had been on the route for six years, and contracts brought in £383 a year. It did not seem that it would be proper to assume that all the contracts he had would follow the mail contract, as they were in some degree the result of his own energy. Kingsbeer's license could not, therefore, be refused fairly. Samuels, on the other hand, stated that he could not make a profit on the mail contract alone. There was no reason why Samuels should be preferred except that his was the lowest tender for the mail contract. If the post office wished Kingsbeer to carry the mails, and no agreement could be reached as to the amount of subsidy, the licensing authority would decide on it after hearing representations. Mail Contract Important Coalgate-Hororata rural delivery: C. D. McGarry, of Coalgate, applied for renewal of a license, and W. E. Charles applied for a goods license on the same route. The application of Charles has been granted for one vehicle to carry mails, newspapers, and small parcels. The application of McGarry has been refused.

The mail contract far outweighed any other part of the business concerned in the applications of Charles and McGarry, the judgment stated, and no part of the business apart from the mail was personal to McGarry. The lowest tender for mail was that of Charles. Both could not be on the route. Charles's application was therefore allowed and McGarry's refused.