“Taking Our Living”

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 1010, 28 June 1930, Page 8

“Taking Our Living”

CARRIERS COMPLAIN OF TAXIS TAXI-CABS are turning themselves into express vans and taking away our livelihood. Where a year or two ago carriers could earn £2 a day we are lucky if we can make 7s 6d today.” With this complaint 132 luggage carriers plying for hire in the City have petitioned the City Council for a by-law prohibiting taxis from carrying more than, say, a hundredweight of luggage. Another complaint is that taxis are being used to transport luggage even though no passenger is aboard the vehicle.

Amplifying the grounds for the existing dissatisfaction the manager of a city carrying concern cited examples of what Auckland carriers consider unfair competition by taxis. On one occasion a cab was seen being loaded with no fewer than 14 bags and trunks. An endeavour was made to find a council inspector, hut before one could arrive the taxi had gone. It was now becoming common for a person to engage one taxi for himself and a second for his luggage. So far had the cabs made inroads into what the carriers regarded as their preserves that on a recent Sunday one taxi had been occupied in making six journeys in courfee of the removal of furniture. One actually had been noted delivering bread.

So hardly had the carry men been hit, continued the manager, that whereas not long ago there used to De as many as 30 seeking to transport luggage from the railway station, today there were only three or four. The arrival of an overseas passenger steamer was at one time a harvest day for the carriers, who frequently made up to £2, but since the coming of the taxis and the “war” which resulted among them the van men who depended on luggage transport for their living were being forced from their occupation. Moreover, these were at the mercy of seven or eight porters at the wharves who call taxis in preference to the luggage vans. If the suggested by-law were not enacted, this narrator predicted a gloomy future for carriers proper. Asked if the public could be blamed for discrimination in view of the speed and cheapness of taxi transportation, he said that the carriers felt they were being undercut to an unwarranted extent and made to suffer at competitive rates which the taxi companies themselves could not afford. The City Council fixed carriers’ charges at a minimum of 3s 6d, but today they were glad to get 2s for short-distance trips. • The complaint was referred to the manager of one of the largest taxi companies operating in Auckland. He said that his drivers were instructed not to transport luggage without n passenger. Business had been declined when persons had wanted a taxi to carry a parcel unaccompanied by a passenger. frequently called for a cab to take wreaths to clients’ houses,, but it was his firm’s practice to decline the mission unless the package were in custody of a mes senger.

“I was under the impression that there was a by-law prohibiting transport of luggage without a passenger,” remarked the manager. “When we started here three or four years ago a carrier complained to the chief traffic inspector, Mr. Hogan, and we desisted,” he added.

When the carriers’ appeal for a protective by-law came before the Legal and By-laws Committee of the council the committee decided against the suggested regulation. The appellants pointed out that the Christchurch City Council had enacted such a bylaw, which was still on its books. Making inquiries, Mr. Hogan learned that in consequence of a case heard before the court in 1928 and newspaper and public opinion, the Christchurch City Council had not enforced the bylaw as it considered that if the by-law was tested and taken to the Appeal Court, the court would order an amendment. The chief inspector, Christchurch, had forwarded him an editorial from a Christchurch paper. This was in comment on a test case that was heard before Magistrate H. P. Lawry, who convicted and ordered defendant to pay costs for carrying luggage in his taxi-cab without passengers. The editorial was as follows: —“If taxi-cabs are not to be allowed to carry luggage without passengers then they should not be allowed to carry passengers without luggage. That, at all events, would seem to be the answer to counsel, who argued in the Magistrate's Court that a taxi-driver’s licence to carry ‘passenger and luggage’ debarred him from carrying luggage alone, and gave a monopoly of such busiuess to carriers. Yet a magistrate has endorsed this interpretation of a city by-law, and one can only express the hope that the by-law will be speedily amended or upset. Its effect would be to prevent a man from calling a taxi to his hotel, putting his bag in it, and then deciding to walk to the railway station for the sake of the exercise. It would prevent him. also, from sending a taxi-driver to his home to pick up his travelling-bag with orders to come back to his office and drive him down to the ferry or train. “Such prohibitions have never beeu contemplated by the legislature. They are an example of regulations run mad, and their enforcement would lead to ludicrous situations. We shall probably hear, very soon, that the owner of a furniture van may not give a lift to a householder whose furniture he is moving, but must leave that service for taxi-drivers to perform. The matter is almost too trifling for consideration. It recalls the evergreen story of the paperhangers who refused to pull out the old bell-wire because it was plumbers’ work.” “The foregoing remarks appear to be a complete answer to the petitioners,” said Mr. Hogan. The Legal and By-laws Committee was of opinion that to give effect to the request of the carriers would prove cumbersome and undesirable. It therefore had no recommendation to make.