INJURY ALLEGED

New Zealand Times, Volume LIII, Issue 12354, 26 January 1926, Page 8

INJURY ALLEGED

SKINS AND HIDES CONTROL CHARGE AGAINST GOVERNMENT TANNERIES COMMISSION INQUIRY The sitting was commenced in Wellington yesterday of the Commission appointed by the Government to inquire into certain claims and allegations made by the Woolston Tanneries, Ltd., Christchurch, in respect of regulations for the control of skins and hides during the war. The commission is empowered to inquire as to whether the company suffered injury or damage in accordance with the petition to Parliament, and what damages, if any, they were entitled to. Sir John Hoeking constitutes the Commission, Sir John Findlay, K.C., and with him Mr C. H. Taylor, is appearing for the Government, and Mr M. Myers, K.C., and with him Mr H. E. Evans, for the company. Mr Myers, in opening his' address, said that they made no charge of conscious bias or dishonesty against the Director of Agriculture (Dr. Reakes) or any other Government official. In 1923 the Mto Z Committee of the House made a favourable recommendation to the Government on the company’s petition. The next step was the opinion which he gave and the address which he made before the joint Committee of both Houses. The company was not a party to the proceedings before the joint committee; counsel merely attended and made a short statement. Before he went any further, he wanted to make the point that many of the statements made before the joint committee of the House were absolutely contrary to facts. These statements referred to matters of a vital Character. The Commissioner: Who made statements ?—counsel or the witnesses? Mr Myers: Both, sir. Of course, Ido not mean to iranly that those statements were made delioerately. Sir John Findlay interposed to remark that the Woolston Tanneries, Ltd., were not represented before the joint committee. If they hod b een > the statements complained oz would have been refuted. *'EFFECT OF WAR REGULATIONS/* Mr Myers said that in the circumstances it was quite Impossible for. the petitioners to be .represented before'the joint committee. Proceeding, Mr Myers said before the joint committee issued its finding the company was advised .to again petition the House of Representatives. This was done in 1924, and application was. made for the setting up of an impartial tribunal to deal with the matter. The report of the joint committee was not tabled in the House of Representatives; it was "talked out/' It was, however? tabled •in • the Legislative Council. The M to Z Committee of the House in 1924 recommended '-that a commission shonld be set up, and this recommendation was carried out. Mr Myers remarked that before the original committee of the House the quantum of loss was not gone into, as it was felt by both sides that some other tribunal would have to settle the matter. The company made two claims, and he proposed to present the case in the same manner as he had presented it before the committee in 1923. He did tha.t in order that it might pot be suggested that the company had made a change of front. He made the claim that at no time had the company changed its front; at no time had it alleged conscious bias against the Director of Agriculture. The company submitted that the war regulations governing hides and skins operated against the company unnecessarily and unreasonably, because they were in a uniquo position. If they failed to 6how that they were in a unique position, then they would admit that they were not entitled to compensation. On the first claim, in regard to pelts, the company could not' show a tangible loss of more than *26000, hut on the second claim, in regard to hides, their loss was something more than .£IOO,OOO. The •Commission is being continued today.