TRANSPORT BOARD

Manawatu Standard, Volume LV, Issue 224, 21 August 1935, Page 4

TRANSPORT BOARD

REMARKS BY COUNSEL. RESENTED BY CHAIRAIAN. WELLINGTON, Aug. 21. A complaint that Air H. F. O’Lenrv, K.C., had made an unjustifiable attack upon the independence of members of the Transport Co-ordination Board was made by the chairman (Sir Stephen Allen) at the sitting in Wellington yesterday in the course of the hearing of the application of Great Pacific Airways, Ltd., to have Palmerston North included in its trunk air route from Auckland to Dunedin. Air O’Leary appeared as counsel for Great Pacific Airways, and in his final address commented upon the evidence of Air C. G. White, of Union Airways, Ltd., who opposed the application. Air O’Leary said he was struck bv the assurance with which the representative of the Union Co. had stated what his organisation was going to do. He had mentioned an alteration in time-table. Instead of saving the company pro]rosed to make a. change provided the board approved of it, lie said the company intended to make the change. The Union Co. appeared to proclaim its intentions plainly and confidently. No doubt there was good ground for this' attitude, as in the past the company seemed to he very successful in getting what it wanted from the board.

Sir Stephen Allen : I don’t think you are justified in making a reflection of that kind on the board.

Air O’Leary: I am making no reflection, I am merely stating facts. I can add, too, that, though the board takes exception to the statement that this decision under discussion was made at a private meeting, it certainly was not made at a public meeting.

Air O'Leary continued his sul>missions on the facts of his case. When he concluded the chairman remarked that counsel appeared to him to have made an unjustifiable reflection upon Iho independence of the board. Mr O’Leary said he made no reflection. His remarks were merely a review of some facts.

Sir Stephen Allen, recalling the general trend of the remarks, said the utterances appeared to him to be a reflection on the members. Air O’Leary said he intended no reflection and could not remember making any. Perhaps his words had been unhappily constructed. Sir Stephen Allen : T merely wish to know if you adhere to what van said.

Air O’Leary gave an assurance that he mount no reflection on the lward. His remarks were against the company opposing him and ho was entitled to make that criticism, which was really intended to be against the confident, and even arrogant, way its representative had declared in evidence what his company proposed to do. He repeated his innocence of any insinuation against members of the board, and said he could not recall making remarks which could be construed as a reflection.

The chairman said he would accept this assurance.