FREE CARRIAGE OF LIME

Southland Times, Issue 23228, 17 June 1937, Page 9

FREE CARRIAGE OF LIME

To The Editor

Sir,—At the last meeting of the Southland Farmers’ Union it was interesting to note the explanation offered by the district traffic manager of railways in connection with the free carriage of lime. He starts his letter off like a fairy tale—“ Many years ago”—and it lives up to its introduction. The further it goes the less convincing it seems. Surely the Farmers’ Union has _ sufficient experience to be very scepticalof regulations which read “inter alia. The intended meaning of a regulation read in conjunction with the Act and . its applicability to the carriage of perishables is so prone to ' distortion that it is hardly conceivable that the Farmers’ Union would fall for it By innuendo the traffic manager has endeavoured to create an impression that the national transport system has not benefited by the increased productivity of the land. A review of the haulage figures on the national transport system over the past 10 years is sufficient evidence of the benefit which has accrued to the railways. Under State monopoly the railage of live stock degenerated to such a degree in terms of damage and detention, filthy trucks and mismanagement, that it proved too great a handicap for the railways to compete with road transport. The road transport operators have. proved to the Government that their services are “in the public interest,” for which the Government has granted them licences and collected tax thereon. The weight of evidence produced and public opinion left them no alternative. Now we have the Government going in by the “back door” method and taking the livelihood of operators away, though their services, on the Government’s own admission, have been proven to be in the best interests of the live stock industry. If the Farmers’ Union does not wish a return to the evils of the State mono- , poly in vogue a few years ago, and to the uneconomic conditions also prevailing, it would be well advised to continue supporting road transport in all its forms. It will form a valuable insurance policy against a repetition of the treatment railway users were subjected to in the past. Mr Lindsay’s contention that the fact of the department’s receiving . credit from the Department of Agriculture does not affect the position as the Government has still to meet the cost, is almost too ludicrous to comment upon. It was always the Government’s intention to meet through the Agriculture Department the matter of the free carriage of lime, and the same was provided for L the estimates, and through the increased haulage to accrue as an outcome of greater production. The traffic manager’s remark that the case of each farmer not utilizing the railways for the transport of his farm produce was decided on its merits with strict impartiality is the outward and visible forerunner of what farmers can expect when a return, to State monopoly has been achieved. Who are public servants to decide what shall or shall not be done, and call themselves the judge and jury of what is fair and impartial or otherwise? The Government has set up authorities to decide what is fair and impartial in connection with transport matters, over and above which there is the Magistrate, who after hearing public evidence is there for the purpose of delivering unbiased judgment. My advice to farmers is to try a little publicity when threatened with being charged haulage on their agricultural lime, and allow the Railway Department to take their case before the proper tribunal for a verdict—Yours, SPECTATOR. June 15, 1937. [This letter was referred to the District Traffic Manager of Railways who preferred to make no comment].