THE PUTARURU PRESS. THURSDAY, APRIL 5, 1928. BEATING THE BUSES.

Putaruru Press, Volume VI, Issue 231, 5 April 1928, Page 4

THE PUTARURU PRESS.

THURSDAY, APRIL 5, 1928. BEATING THE BUSES.

’Phone 28 - - - P.O. Box 44 Office - - - - Oxford Place

A few days ago, in the course of an article on the competition between motor-buses and the railways in Britain and America, we repeated our warning that in New Zealand, where a similar struggle is in progress, the Government would probably attempt to protect the railways as they have already succeeded in protecting the trams—by unfair interference with private enterprise, writes the Christchurch Press. A nearer approach to New Zealand conditions, however, is to be found in Australia, where the railways are State-owned, and Australian papers to hand by the latest mail justify as completely as could be wished our persistent appeals to the public to be on its guard. In South Australia, under the operations of a Motor Transport Board, bus proprietors have been compelled to increase their fares to such an extent that people are being driven to travel by train. All services, whether running in direct competition with the railways or not, are affected, and in some cases services have had to be discontinued. Thus, the railway fare from Adelaide to Port Pirie is 25s 6d, and buses are being compelled to charge 34s 9d, while on another bus run where the fare used to be £3 the legal minimum is £5 2s. In New South Wales, where the Government has not yet introduced restrictive legislation, opposition to the bus services has taken a remarkable form. The railwaymen, fearing loss of employment through curtailment of railway services, are threatening to boycott those business houses using buses instead of the railways for the transport of goods a reversion to the crude economic notions of the ma-chine-wreckers of the early nineteenth century. Such a course, though certain in the long run to be ineffective, would probably have a serious effect on country business people, especially in centres where there is a large population of railwaymen. It must in fairness be said that the New South Wales Minister for Railways has strongly deprecated any such scheme, and pointed out that bus competition is of such magnitude that even direct action by the whole railway service could not check it. But the most interesting proposal in connection with the fight between the buses and the railways has come from a judge of the Federal Arbitration Court, Sii 1 John Quick. During a session of the Court in Melbourne someone called his attention to the effect of private motor traffic on the railways, whereupon he is reported to have said:—

You cannot interfere with the rights of the private car owner as the matter stands at present. I think, however, that the Crown Law Officers should consider the question of whether any person who owns a motor-car for his business or private convenience should be allowed to carry passengers free. That seems to be done in a wholesale fashion. It deprives the railways of revenue and should be stopped. Most people will wonder how a judge, of all people, could advocate a measure on a par with the legislative aberrations of an American “ bluelaw ” State or our own Parliament’s efforts to stop one man paying for another’s beer. But the truth is that the monstrous interference with the rights of the individual contemplated by Sir John is merely the logical extreme of the principle underlying our own legislation to protect the trams against bus competition. If it is fair to stop a bus owner from giving people cheap rides, there is no reason why a car owner should not be stopped from giving people rides for nothing.