PASSENGERS' LUGGAGE.

NZ Truth, Issue 66, 22 September 1906, Page 4

PASSENGERS' LUGGAGE.

"I regret, as the luggage was unchecked, the Department cannot accept any liability for its loss." This is the ultimatum of the Auckland Traffic Manager of Railways to a resident of Cambridge, who had the misfortune to lose a dress basket between Auckland and Ruakura Junction, says the Waikato "Independent." The basket, with other luggage, was given m charge of a porter at the Auckland platform, half an 'hour before the 10 "o'clock express left, and from that day to this no trace of it has been found, and a claim was made upon the 'Department for its loss. The decision of

the Department is one, which is of the utmost importance to all passengers who travel on the Government railways. Few people are aware of the fact, that unless they have their luggage checked, :t is carried solely at their own risk. It is only fair to state that this statement is placarded m railway carriages, hut even if it is read, it is safe to say that few people regard the statement; with the seriousness it deserves. A similar case to the above occurred recently m Christchurch, where the Hon. J. D. Ormbnd sued the Department for £29 for the loss of a portmanteau between the Lyttelton wharf and the Christchurch Railway Station. He actually handed the luggage into an official's hands m the van, but on arrival at Christchurch —a distance of only seven miles—the portmanteau was missing ! The Magistrate decided that, as the luggage was not checked, the Department was not liable. Now, m the United States, it has been held 'by the Supreme Court that by-laws passed by Railway Companies, declining responsibility for loss of passengers' luggage, were ultra vires. In England, as common carriers, the Railway Companies are also responsible for the safe carriage of passengers' luggage. These facts appear to throw some doubt on the soundness of the decision of the Christchurch Magistrate, as to whether the by-law of the Railway Department, m regard to its non-liability for unchecked luggage, is not heyond its legal powers as a common carrier. Possibly, if the' matter was tested m the Supreme Court here, this would be found to be the case. Anyway, whether the Department is within its rights or not, its action is unquestionably wrong m equity. By passing such a by-law, it is shirking its "responsibilities as a common carrier, and holding out a premium to its officials £o act dishonestly. That, few of them would be guilty we are quite aware, but petty thieving has not been unknown, even m the railway service. If anyone is inclined to dishcnesiv, the temptation to steal passengers' luggage is now ever before them, for it is known that no official is responsible for unchecked lugPivy. .Another peculiar anomaly of . the chee.: ing system is. that no charge is made for checking the lug&a**e. All a passenger Is required io do, is to be down a quarter of an hour before a train leaves, hand his llugjgage to a porter and use the-ma-gical words "check my luggage," get a check, and> the -Railway. Department takes all the responsibility, off the passenger's shoulders. Why is the system not automatic to every passenger who hands over his luggage * ouarter of an hour before a train leaves ? Why should the words "check my luggage" have such a magical effect, m making the Department responsible ? Anyhow the above cases prove the inequitable manner m which passengers, who fail to check their luggage, are treated by the Department. They should serve as . a warning to all who travel by the New Zealand * Government Railways, of the serious responsibility they incur by not having their luggage checked, fqr they have nothing to pay for doing so, and everything to lose by not doing so.