RAILWAY FENCES

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22712, 26 October 1935, Page 8

RAILWAY FENCES

QUESTION OF LIABILITY RESPONSIBILITY OF FARMERS DEPUTATION TO BOARD The vexed question of who should accent the responsibility of the erection and maintenance of fences dividing farm lands and railway property was debated at some length last evening between a deputation representing the Otago 1 10 ‘ vincial Council of the New Zeaiaud Farmers’ Union and the Railways Boaui. Mr A. C. Cameron headed the deputation, which consisted of Messrs W. Lee anil o. Hagan (Waikouaiti), W. Sutherland (Clinton), A. Renton (Balclutha) and C. J. Inder (Central Otago). The acting chairman of the board (Sir James Gunson) presided, and the other memoers (Messrs D. Reese, E. Newman and G. W. Reid) and the general manager of railways (Mr G. H. Mackley) were a,so present. . , Mr Lee said that for 40 years it had been the impression among farmers that they were to keep their hands oft the fences dividing their properties and railway land, and now that the upkeep o these fences had, so to speak, been tnrust upon them, they resented it bitterly. Ihuy were the best customers of the railways, and looked on the new policy as particularly bad business from the departments point of view. When the state of the main roads in the vicinity of farms was considered it was not difficult to envisage what could happen to the railways through wandering stock, in a very short space of time, if some arrangement were not reached regarding fences. The policy of the department now was to supply the material a_nd to let the- farmers do the ]ob, but it was not going to cost the department much more to do all of the work, and so have standard fences throughout the country. If the responsibility of keeping them in order were put on the farmers, there was no doubt that in a few years’ time the department would have a stiff task in maintaining standard fences. Mr Sutherland endorsed Mr Lee s remarks, and pointed out that many farmers were not efficient fencers, and io allow them to assume the responsibility of keeping railway fences in order was opening the way to a grave menace to the travelling public. The department used to do the work, and for 40 or 50 years this arrangement had been carefully observed, but, for some reason or another, the policy had recently been altered. He would suggest, said Mr Sutherland, that the department employ gangs of expert fencers to carry out the work. Messrs Hagan, Inder, and Renton supported the previous speakers, Mr Renton emphasising the necessity of watching over the safety of the travelling public. In reply, Sir James Gunson congratulated the deputation _ on the reasonable and friendly manner in which it had put forward its representations. He then went on to administer a gentle rebuke to the farming community in general, and said that the board was somewhat perturbed at the fact that a large amount of farm business was not coming to the railways. He thought it scarcely fair on the part of soma farmers to take advantage of the department’s cheaper cheaper freights and utilise the competitive services for the transport of such goods as wool and lambs. Such action could easily lead to a price war, which would be no good to anyone. He mentioned this matter so that his hearers might make an effort to get the farmers to give fuller support to the great national system in which they all, as taxpayers, took a particular pride. Reverting to the deputation’s request. Sir James said that, speaking from a detached point of view, he thought that the matter in question was one that lay between owner and owner, with a 50-50 obligation, and he failed to see why the department should be in any different position to a nnvate by the chairman to explain Abe position from the departments point ol view, Mr Mackley said that since the advent of the board the policy with regard to fences had been considerably liberalised, and in no way curtailed, and the department had been able, more or less, to satisfy the Dominion executive of the Farmers’ Union of the generosity of its policy. There were two types of fences—proclaimed, where the department accepted full responsibility—and unproclaimed, where it was under no responsibility. ‘.lt was probable that some misunderstanding had arisen through tne fact that certain gangers, after working in a proclaimed area, and attending to all fences, had been transferred to a district where the fences were unproclaimed, and in ignorance of the regulation had carried on as before. There were over 6000 miles of fencing adjoining the railways, and obviously if the department had to assume the full responsibility tor all this, it would be saddled with a huge financial burden. He was unable to recommend the board to adopt any other policy in regard to unproclaimed fences than that it should supply the material, while Che farmer provided the labour, and that in the case of damage to fences through railway causes or by any servant of the department, it should accept full responsibility. This, he contended, was eminently fair and reasonable. 4 , ~ , Sir James Gunson then gave the deputation a definite assurance in accordance with Mr Mackley’s recommendation, and in reply to a query by Mr Cameron, said that unless the evidence was directly to the contrary, the department would be prepared to take a liberal view of its responsibility in respect of damage. He was of opinion that, by and large, the department by providing material was taking 75 per cent, of the burden. Mr Cameron said that until the FayRaven Commission, the department accepted responsibility for all fences and since the railways had been put alongside the farmers’ lands without their sanction, the board could understand the farming community adopting the attitude it did. Sir James Gunson: Frankly we don t. We think your attitude most unreasonable, and we maintain that the railways are in the position of adjoining owners. Sir James added that if the farmers did not want the material, the department would not provide it, and the obligation would still lie on them to erect fences. He hoped they would join forces with the department and act as adjoining owners, accepting proportionate haThe deputation then thanked the board and withdrew.