STATE COAL AND PRIVILEGE.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 22, 21 October 1907, Page 6

STATE COAL AND PRIVILEGE.

*- —— ■■■ -. If the Premier imagines that, by using all his strength to place-the administration of the State Coal Department above the authority of Parliament, he has removed the recent disturbing suspicions concerning the Department's methods, he is making 'a grievous mistake. Within the last week or two certain private coal-dealers have made/certain allegations—as yet unrefuted by the Government officials —tending' to show that the State_ Coal Department is adopting illegitimate methods of competition against the private vendors of coal. The allegations are various in kind, but they all point to this: that there is at least a prinia facie, case against the Department' of selling coal at a loss to the State. When the Department was created, it was certainly not intended by Parliament that the coal industry was to he nationalised by the application of those under-selling methods which are expressly condemned in all modern antitrust legislation. This is what is alleged to be taking place, and some very convincing "figures have been produced ■by the- promoters' of 'the charges against the Department. The public is concerned to know how much substance inheres in those charges, and it was to find this out that the A to L Petitions Committee took evidence. One of the officers of the Christchurch State Coal depot refused to give evidence, and the Petitions Committee naturally asked for the support of Parliament in the matter. The clear duty of the Premier, as leader of the House, was to sustain the authority of Parliament' ns delegated to its' Committee. Instead, he declared that tho reference of the petition to the Committee was " a put-up job," although the evidence of his senses was there to show him that the reference was strictly in: conformity with tho rules of Parliament. That was bad enough in itself, but he proceeded to impute improper motives, and, finally moved a resolution which means in effect that departmental officials, appointed by the Ministry of the day, derive from that Ministry immunity from the authority of Parliament. It was a fine thing, Mr.

R. M'Kenzie protested, if tlie leader of the House was going to support an official in lii 3 rebellion against Parliament's authority. In our own opinion it was a disgraceful thing on every ground—an insult to the Committee, a bad precedent, and a stealing away of Parliament's authority by Ministerial- hands. 13 y forcing his resolution through the House in defiance of the members who pleaded for the' dignity of Parliament, the Premier has left the matter in this position: that inquiry into grave charges respecting the Departmental use of public money to injure private traders has been burked, and burked in the worst possible way— by the Ministerial ■ over-riding of parliamentary authority. ' The , members who supported the Premier may have done so -out of the mistaken notion that they were asked to defend a socialistic project which they imagine is in clanger of, being strangled by- its enemies. . That consideration should not have , weight. The question before the House was whether or not the Government can take away from a Select Committee the powers which Parliament has given it. The public will not be satisfied by the course taken that the allegations are unfounded, but rather will suspe.ct, must suspect, that there is more in them than the Department wants the public (o know.