THE STATE AND JUSTICE.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 490, 24 April 1909, Page 4

THE STATE AND JUSTICE.

,'lt appears that - we under-stated the case against the Government in respect of .the Crown Suits Act when commenting upon this matter yesterday. The Act defines the kind of public works conducted by the State, for accidents in regard to which an action may be brought against the Government. : As the Act was passed in.lßßl, and has pot been amended since, there is no provision. for obtaining damages for accidonts occasioned in the discharge of functions which the State has recently: assumed. That is to say, if a man is injured on a Government railway, tramway, road, or bridge, or by contact with a. live telegraph wire, he can bring a case against. the; Government, but if the Post Office motor van or the State Coal Department's steam wagon runs over him, no. redress is possible, because the State, having had no steam wagons or motor vans when' the original Act was passed, has made no provision for accidents which they may cause, The-ques-tion of negligence does not enter in; the State is above tho law whero these new services are concerned; It has only to quote the technical defence of this, defective' statute, and no case can lie against it. We urged yesterday that it waslunjusfc of the Government .to evade .its moral .responsibilities by this quibble, which has just been used against an unfortunate victim of its State coal traffic, especially when the fear of losing votes is apt to lead to different treatment being given in othor cases, when the suppliants represent numerous, or powerful parties. In this connection: wo quoted the-case of the New Zealand Farmers' Co-operative Distributing Company, Limited, as one in which equity had been secured, as the result of the company's voting strength and influence. But.. it appears that we gave too much credit to the Government in saying that it had done right in that case, even ; if from wrong, motives. The- letter, written on the, company's behalf, rwhich we publish in another column, shows that tho. Government did not; give equity in that instance. It'merely gave a delusive promise of equity, on theevo of the election, and siSco"then it has treated, the company with unashamed injustice. v •

The facts of the case are very simple; ■The company hold a fiyo years' lease 'of a building adjoining the: State ,'■ Coal Department's premises, and: for a' long time past, the company state, it ; has been found impossible to sub-let this building owing to the invasion of; showers of fine coal, dust from -the Department's shed. No such ; nuisance, it'is statcd,rwas. experienced '■ until'the Department com-; menced operations in tho adjoining premises. The Hon. :J. M'Gowan, as' Minister for Mines, was appealed to to have the nuisance remedied or the company's building'.taken over, by'tho De;partm'ent.;'A .reply .was received,' after some' delayj that the Department recognised no liability. Aware, of the deficiencies of the Grown: Suits Act, the: company petitioned Parliament for-; redress. A committee of the House after hearing eviderico roported that.jt had no recommendation to make, and a circular was then drafted.setting, out 'the.facts .for the benefit of shareholders. The elections were then coming on, and when the Gov•ornment was acquainted with the company's intention to make tho matter public it replied without delay that the Grown had decided "to waive the provisions of the Act"—precisely what.it had refused to do before. But, when, the; elections safely past, an action for damages' was brought beforo the Court, the ,Crdwn Prosecutor announced that though the Government had , waived the provisions of the Act in regard to damages, no concession was made in respect of an injunction. The company received damages_ for. £205, and tho nuisance, it is alleged, has everUince been going on. At the present time, despite the amount gained in Court, the company are out of pocket to the tune of about £700 by failure to let tho premises, due, as' they allege, to>the invasion of coal dust. The Department has adopted the primitive and practically useless safeguard of sprinkling its coal stocks with water, but beyond. this nothing has, been done, though expert evidence .was given during the Court.proceedings that at an expense of a few pounds the coal shed of the De : partment could be altered so as to abolish the dust niusanep. When the new Minister for : Mines was appointed, the company made representations to him concerning the injustice under which they were suffering, but their various communications were met by unsatisfactory or no.replies. Since they cannot obtain tha injunction which would naturally have accompanied tho verdict in their

favour had their legal proceedings been against a private person, tho only course the company have before them is to bring a series of actions against the Department, for damages in .iospoct of tho.nuisance .which has been already admitted, and is still continuing/ But these actions'they are powerless to bring without receiving, in each case, the express,permission of tho State. Moreover, as the State was dofeatcd in tho original action which, with olcctions pending, it allowed to bo brought against it, the company have ho expectation of obtaining its consent to others. The Stato Coal Depot can continue to bo as great a nuisance as the State chooses, and except through special grace and favour of the Government, which tho latter has.shown not the slightest inclination to grant, the company can hope for no redress. ] There is another aspect of the matter which has not yet been dwelt on. Early last session tho obvious defects of the Crown Suits Act, and tho necessity which exists, in common justice, for bringing that measure up to date, wore represented to tho Govcrtimani on tho ■ coin-

.pany.'B: behalf:.by Me. Field, M.P. Nothing, was done by tho Government, 'arid in the first - week of October Mr. Field . brought .up tho matter again in a question; to the Minister for Mines. In roply ; he wae informed that no promise of an amendment to tho Act had been ;proviously made, and that it was too late to , go'into the matter that eession. Tho determination which the Govornment lias shown in recent cases to ignoro its moral liabilities and profit by the Act's deficiencies, is made more reprehensible by the consideration . that those deficiencies and the injustico thoy can cause, wero known to' it a year ago, and virtually exist to-day by tho Government's deliberate sanction.