FEILDING

Manawatu Standard, Volume IV, Issue 220, 18 August 1931, Page 8

FEILDING

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. The committee of the Feilding Chamber of Commerce met last night, Mr J. S. Tingey presiding. Also present were Messrs Taylor, Goldsmith, Ivellow, Jeffs, Humphreys, Fair and Fitzpatrick. The Auckland chamber wrote asking the Feilding chamber to support a proposal that all party politics should be sunk and a National Government formed in an endeavour to place the country on a better footing. —Mr Fair thought the proposal should be supported. He pointed out that the Auckland chamber was not advocating fusion or any other contentious procedure and personally the speaker thought it high time party bickering ceased and an endeavour was made to form some sort of national party. Mr Fair moved along those lines, liis motion being supported by Mr Kellow and carried. A circular letter was received from the Associated Chambers of Commerce drawing attention to the unfairness caused through the heavy taxation of privately owned gas companies etc., while municipal and power board electrical undertakings were not taxed. The circular advocated the taxation of the electrical undertakings to make the matter of competition more equitable.—The chairman said he was not altogether in agreement with tire proposals for the reason that the power boards were not allowed to show profits but had to pass them on to the public in the form of reduoed charges. Mr Humphreys pointed out that there was another aspect, however, and went on to illustrate the difference between privately owned and municipally owned utilities. In -he first instance people using the utility contributed indirectly to the country s revenue through taxation of the company, whereas those using the municipal utility did not. , The matter was pureued no further and the circular was received. TRANSPORT BILL.

Discussing the provisions of the Transport Bill as forwarded by the Associated Chambers, _ which body severely criticised the .Bill, the chairman said he was not entirely in agreement with the criticism which was somewhat harsh. Personally, he coula not claim first-hand knowledge of the ramifications of the Bill and he did not know whether the chamber was actively interested. , Mr Taylor said the Bill affected local bodies largely and there was no doubt that its powers were far-reach-ing To the speaker the bad aspect or the Bill was that it would necessarily mean the setting up of a huge department of State and this was a matter that chambers of commerce could help guard against. There was drastic restrictive action in the Bill which seriously affected large local bodies such as the Wellington, Auckland and Christchurch City Councils, all o which ran bus services m coii] unction with their tram services. These bodies had supplied an efficient service to the public and were opposed to the idea of the interference of outside influence, which was one of the things the Bil allowed. However there was nothing the Feilding chamber could do and the matter could be safely left to the large local bodies. The discussion then lapsed

budget proposals. The chairman introduced the subject of the Budget proposals as placed betore Parliament by tlie Prime Mil - ister and he thought the chambei should protest at the increased cost of living which would result. £ eliding was essentially a farming town anu the chamber was very intimately concerned in the prosperity of tne farmers and in view or the fact that they were now back to pre-war prices ana the cost of production was about bU per cent, higher, Mr Tingey considered the protest should be entered ihe duty imposed by the Government was not the only charge paid by the public—there was the direct charge or 3d 1-3 per cent, which was placed on all goods before being sold and as the duty average about seven million annually, the result of the Budget proposals would be to increase tins to ton millions. All agroed that the Government had to balance its budget and Mr Eorbes had already slated that next year there would be certain reserves not open to the Government which were open this year and the Budget w;ould oe harder to balance. Mr Tingey claimed there were other avenues tor the securing of revenue than taxing food and he proceeded to mention the increases that had been made of recent years in the Public Service personnel and wages. The increase in both of these had been out of all proportion to the increase in the population and to the speaker it seemed that New' Zealand would have to do without certain servioes that to-day must be regarded in the light of luxuries. There was no doubt that the people of New Zealand would have to economise, as Mr Eorbes had spoken truly that’New Zealand could not go on and still pay its way at the rate of expenditure to-day. , Mr Tingey then moved that the chamber protest against the new Customs duties as they would produce a rise in the cost of living and production. , . Mr Kellow seconded the motion and agreed that the rate of expenditure was too high and it was on this that the Government should economise instead of raising more revenue by increased taxation. Mr Kellow went on to illustrate the increases in the cost of education, and also hospital maintenance. The latter was attaining alarming proportions and it was clear that a halt would have to be called somewhere. The country was getting to a state of “spoon-feeding,” which was serious and lie recalled that the chamber lxad already supported an economy resolution which called for the cutting down by half of the number of members of Parliament. Mr Taylor agreed with the previous speakers. He did not think the Government should have imposed the three per cent, primage duty but he did not mind the duly on tea which called on those who did not drink beer to any great extent to pay a little more. Mr Taylor said he would like to suggest to the Government that it practise even greater economy. Ho had a great deal of confidence in the findings of the Premiers’ Conference in Australia and he awaited the application of them with interest. Mr Taylor touched on other points relating to the subject, and, in conclusion, stated ~ there would have to be a drastic overhaul of the national position to make adjustmerits that were necessary. Mr Fair was in agreement with the motion also, but thought it should go a little further. He thought there should be a reduction in interest of 10 per cent, as this was the only way to tax capital on tho same lines as workers were taxed. This would be a f air way to tax capital returned without affecting the capital itself. He moved that tho Government be asked to introduce legislation that ail payments of internal interest due be reduced by 10 per cent, at the half-year-]y date of payment, for the purpose o‘f assisting producers during the present economic stress. . , ■ The chairman theught Mr Fair s motion should be separate frorn the motion they were discussing. The meeting then carried Mr Tingey’s motion unanimously, and Mr Humphreys, in

seconding Mr Fair’s motion, agreed with the principle of it although considering the reduction should he higher. The speaker went on to refer to the close alliance of business relations between New Zealand and Australia. The question of a reduction in the interest charges would have to receive careful consideration for it would not be just to reduce the interest on long term loans which had been taken up, say, 15 years ago at about 3} per cent. To further reduce the interest on these loans would be unreasonable, but loans at a high rate of interest could be reasonably reduced by 20 per cent. ” The motion was carried without further discussion. MAGISTRATE’S COURT. Mr R. M. Watson, S.M., presided at the usual fortnightly sitting of the Magistrate’s Court in Feilding to-day. Failing to give way to traffic approaching from the right cost Bruce Thompson, of Feilding, and IT. Youle, of Eketaliuna, each 10s with 10s costs. Both defendants admitted the charge. For operating his motor lorry without lights between the hours when such lights should have been showing, Leslie Hickmott, of Feilding, was fined 15s and 11s costs.

For driving a motor car without having the assigned number and distinguishing marks affixed thereto, two brothers, Gordon Lloyd and John Lloyd, were each fined 10s with costs, amounting,to £2 Os 6d.

RESERVED JUDGMENT. Reserved judgment was delivered by the Magistrate in the case in which the police proceeded against Mark Candy, of Feilding, for allegedly rescuing horses from the pound in Feilding. The Magistrate stated as follows:—“In this case, on the evidence for the prosecution, there was not a legal impounding inasmuch as sections 36 and 37 of the Impounding Act, 1908, were not complied with. It is probable that, despite this position, a breach of section 48 of the Act took place. The proper remedy of defendant was under sections 9 and 10 of the Act, but there is no evidence that defendant actually committed the rescue, though there is evidence to connect him with the offence. I think it may well be that defendant considered the horses had been taken from the river bed and there being nothing posted up, or notified, after some waiting at the pound he then took the horses out again. In these circumstances, ?f there was any. offence committed by defendant, and in view o! the fact that the impounding was irregular, I would be prepared to dismiss the information under section 92 of the Justices of the Peace Act, 1927. The information would therefore be dismissed.’’ At the hearing Sergeant Cahill conducted the prosecution while Mr D. C. Cullinane appeared for defendant. CIVIL CASES. Judgment was given for plaintiff in the following undefended civil cases: Hodder and Tolley, Ltd., v. F. Hewitt, £2O 14s lid, costs £4 Is 6d; W. Itayworth and Coy., Ltd., v. J. Mullins, £l4 6s 3d, costs £2 16s; Wm. Bramwell, Ltd., v. A. E. Raynor, £6, costs £1 10s 6d; W. Rayworth and Coy., Ltd., v. George Sliapleski, £1 4s lOd, oosts 9s; R. Tallke v. A. E. Martin, £lO, costs £1 12s 6d; Kingston Motors Ltd., v. R. Feck, £3 15s, costs £l 4s 6d. POSSESSION OF TENEMENT. James Keenan secured an order against E. Moran, of Halcombe, for the possession of a tenement for nonpayment of rent, for rent arrears amounting to £l3 10s, plus costs amounting to £3 2s. An order for possession before September 15 was made.