HEARING CONCLUDED

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXI, Issue 18378, 21 April 1934, Page 14

HEARING CONCLUDED

COMPANY COMMISSION CASE . court action JUDGMENT RESERVED (Per Press Association.) WELLINGTON. Just night. * The Company Commission rase was continued before the Appeal Court. Mr. Callan, continuing, submitted that there was no power for the com mission to award costs, because in this instance there were no parties but even if there were power, that in itself being merely ancillary to the iidjuity, did not render the commis Biou a judicial tribunal. As regards the power to fine, the statute merely imposed a liability to be fined, and the commission itself could not im pose a fine. For that purpose, • roeourso would have to be had to the Magistrate’s Court, under the Justices of the Peace Act. Mr. Callan was proceeding to elaborate ;hia submission that the commission . was validly constituted, ■ when the Chief .Justice .stated that the Court was of opinion that there was jio doubt that it was intra vires. At the same tilde, the court would like ip hear a brief outlino of Mr. Callan’s argument on the point. Mr. Callan stated that the real purposes of the commission were not to aid the Government in finding out evils, because the 'Government was already aware that such evils existed. t The objects were rather to ascertain ’ whether legislation could do anything to remedy these evils, and, if so, what form the legislation should take. “Proposed legislation” meant that the Government was minded to introduce legislation. The plaintiffs' construction of “proposed legislation” was a narrow one, and would defeat the object of the statute, as it would mean that the Government could not set up a commission without having first introduced a bill into Parliament.

Dealing With the question of bias, Mr. Callan stated that he wished to answer the allegation that Professor Belsh&w had committed a breach of good haste In acting on the commission. As the purpose of the commission was not to find out evils, but to consider remedies for evils known by the Government to exist, what was more natural for the Government than to turn to Professor Belshaw, whose special knowledge and ability were so valuable? Admittedly he was hos-

tile to some of the methods of certain

companies, but so was the Government, and Professor Belshaw was ac- , cordingly the most suitable man to appoint. Not only was Professor Bolshaw guiltless of a breach of good taste, but he was also acting with great public-spiritedness and carrying out a . public duty. , With reforenee to the pamphlet and articles of ProfeSSOt , Belshaw referred to by the plaintiffs, Mr. Callan said the suggestions therein were only tentatively made, showing that Professor , Belshaw preserved the open mind of the scientific observer, and had not prejudiced the matters concerned. Mr. Callan submitted that questions Of bias and pre-judgment found \ery little scope in a tribunal of this nature. Its report had first to be approved by the Cabinet and then legislation passed before its finding affected individuals. Dealing with the objections , of the plaintiffs to Mr. Graham, counsel contended that Mr. Graham was not a judicial officer, but a person appointed to inquire as to possible legislation. If he were disqualified, then no prominent sharebroker would be qualified to sit on the commission. This would debar the commission from utilising the services of the class of men most useful for tho purpose. It

was necessary that a sharebroker 'should b? on the commission, because no one was more likely to have the necessary knowledge and experience than a. person who had spent his life in. marketing shares. There was no reason why Mr. Graham should not usefully and properly sit on the comjjiission. To assert that he had financial interests to serve was absurd. /_ The court reserved its decision.